* bug#16728: 24.3.50; bug? (with-temp-buffer (insert "foo")) deactivates mark in current buffer
@ 2014-02-12 8:53 Oleh
2014-02-12 11:54 ` Helmut Eller
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Oleh @ 2014-02-12 8:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 16728
I'm not sure if it's a bug, that's why I'm asking.
To reproduce, in *scratch* `mark-whole-buffer` and `eval-expression`
(with-temp-buffer (insert "foo"))
it deactivates mark, although this doesn't:
(with-temp-buffer (forward-char 1))
and this doesn't (assuming there are two windows with different
buffers):
(progn (other-window 1) (insert "foo"))
although this does:
(progn (other-window 1) (insert "foo") (other-window 1))
although this doesn't:
(progn (other-window 1) (forward-char 1) (other-window 1))
I realize that there's the `deactivate-mark` variable, but I think
it would be better if operations on other buffers would be
consistent in not modifying the mark in current buffer.
regards,
Oleh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* bug#16728: 24.3.50; bug? (with-temp-buffer (insert "foo")) deactivates mark in current buffer
2014-02-12 8:53 bug#16728: 24.3.50; bug? (with-temp-buffer (insert "foo")) deactivates mark in current buffer Oleh
@ 2014-02-12 11:54 ` Helmut Eller
2014-02-14 17:21 ` Stefan Monnier
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Helmut Eller @ 2014-02-12 11:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 16728
On Wed, Feb 12 2014, Oleh wrote:
> I'm not sure if it's a bug, that's why I'm asking.
> To reproduce, in *scratch* `mark-whole-buffer` and `eval-expression`
>
> (with-temp-buffer (insert "foo"))
I would also like to know why
(list (with-temp-buffer
(set (make-local-variable 'deactivate-mark) nil)
(insert "foo")
(let (deactivate-mark)
(with-temp-buffer
(insert "bar"))))
deactivate-mark)
returns (nil t) instead of (nil nil).
Helmut
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* bug#16728: 24.3.50; bug? (with-temp-buffer (insert "foo")) deactivates mark in current buffer
2014-02-12 11:54 ` Helmut Eller
@ 2014-02-14 17:21 ` Stefan Monnier
2014-02-14 18:12 ` Helmut Eller
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Monnier @ 2014-02-14 17:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Helmut Eller; +Cc: 16728
> (list (with-temp-buffer
> (set (make-local-variable 'deactivate-mark) nil)
> (insert "foo")
> (let (deactivate-mark)
> (with-temp-buffer
> (insert "bar"))))
> deactivate-mark)
The `let' above dynamically binds the `deactivate-mark' of the first
temp-buffer. The (insert "bar") then set the deactivate-mark in the
second temp-buffer, which did not make it buffer-local, so it really
sets the global deactivate-mark. Try:
(with-temp-buffer
(let ((a 3)
(buf (current-buffer)))
(make-local-variable 'a)
(let ((a 4))
(with-temp-buffer
(message "a=%S but a=%S" (list a (local-variable-p 'a))
(with-current-buffer buf
(list a (local-variable-p 'a))))))))
Interaction between let-bindings and buffer-local bindings is tricky.
Stefan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* bug#16728: 24.3.50; bug? (with-temp-buffer (insert "foo")) deactivates mark in current buffer
2014-02-14 17:21 ` Stefan Monnier
@ 2014-02-14 18:12 ` Helmut Eller
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Helmut Eller @ 2014-02-14 18:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Monnier; +Cc: 16728
On Fri, Feb 14 2014, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> (list (with-temp-buffer
>> (set (make-local-variable 'deactivate-mark) nil)
>> (insert "foo")
>> (let (deactivate-mark)
>> (with-temp-buffer
>> (insert "bar"))))
>> deactivate-mark)
>
> The `let' above dynamically binds the `deactivate-mark' of the first
> temp-buffer. The (insert "bar") then set the deactivate-mark in the
> second temp-buffer, which did not make it buffer-local, so it really
> sets the global deactivate-mark. Try:
>
> (with-temp-buffer
> (let ((a 3)
> (buf (current-buffer)))
> (make-local-variable 'a)
> (let ((a 4))
> (with-temp-buffer
> (message "a=%S but a=%S" (list a (local-variable-p 'a))
> (with-current-buffer buf
> (list a (local-variable-p 'a))))))))
>
> Interaction between let-bindings and buffer-local bindings is tricky.
This prints "a=(3 nil) but a=(4 t)". "a=(4 nil) but a=(3 t)" would be
less surprising.
Why is it this way? This behavior of let seems non-intuitive and
rather useless to me. I don't suppose that there is a variant of let
that does what I want?
Helmut
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-02-14 18:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-02-12 8:53 bug#16728: 24.3.50; bug? (with-temp-buffer (insert "foo")) deactivates mark in current buffer Oleh
2014-02-12 11:54 ` Helmut Eller
2014-02-14 17:21 ` Stefan Monnier
2014-02-14 18:12 ` Helmut Eller
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.