From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: buffer-swap-text and multibyteness Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:46:29 -0500 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1233679625 21619 80.91.229.12 (3 Feb 2009 16:47:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 16:47:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eliz@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Kenichi Handa Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 03 17:48:17 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LUORV-0004Tz-M9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 17:48:09 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39243 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LUOQC-00026s-VK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:46:49 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LUOQ4-00022b-Sb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:46:40 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LUOQ3-00021E-8N for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:46:40 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=48437 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LUOQ3-000214-1F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:46:39 -0500 Original-Received: from chene.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.20]:55742) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LUOQ1-0007dM-1V; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:46:37 -0500 Original-Received: from alfajor.home (vpn-132-204-232-163.acd.umontreal.ca [132.204.232.163]) by chene.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n13GkUil024824; Tue, 3 Feb 2009 11:46:30 -0500 Original-Received: by alfajor.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 42C4DA22D1; Tue, 3 Feb 2009 11:46:30 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Kenichi Handa's message of "Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:59:36 +0900") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV3202=0 X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:108689 Archived-At: >> Yes. we agree (except that switch-to-buffer is a function I would >> prefer to see disapppear, so better use something else like >> pop-to-buffer or just set-buffer). > Is above "Yes" also to this question? >> > Is the conbination of set-buffer and switch-to-buffer >> > heavier than two buffer-swap-text? buffer-swap-text does not meddle with window<->buffer association, so the equivalent is just `set-buffer'. I.e. we'd just use (with-current-buffer rmail-data-buffer ...) which is a lot lighter weight than a pair of buffer-swap-text. Stefan