From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] autorevert.el -- revert fix for Windows platform Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:50:11 +0100 Message-ID: References: <7it9frhi.fsf@cante.net> <87slbx9vcf.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <46040576.9090505@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1174780254 22547 80.91.229.12 (24 Mar 2007 23:50:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:50:54 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Jari Aalto , emacs-devel@gnu.org, Jason Rumney To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Mar 25 00:50:51 2007 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 1HVG0Y-0005pi-Cj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:50:50 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVG2c-0001s4-9D for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:52:58 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HVG2B-0001HN-Qy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:52:31 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HVG29-0001Fh-8O for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:52:31 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVG29-0001F7-3R for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:52:29 -0500 Original-Received: from pfepb.post.tele.dk ([195.41.46.236]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HVG02-0002SH-Ht; Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:50:18 -0400 Original-Received: from kfs-l.imdomain.dk.cua.dk (0x503e2644.bynxx19.adsl-dhcp.tele.dk [80.62.38.68]) by pfepb.post.tele.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id EB6B1A50016; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:50:12 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Fri\, 23 Mar 2007 18\:41\:35 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.96 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:68509 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >>> For the release, I'd say Jari's patch is good enough! > >> I'm not sure, do we really expect buffer-size to be the same as the number >> of bytes in the file, potentially in the presence of multibyte characters? >> This change is quite likely to break things if that assumption is >> not correct. > > Duh, I didn't even look at the patch. So no clearly the patch is > unacceptable as is. But the principle of checking whether the file changes > size is the thing I agreed to. Me too. I didn't think deeply about the implications of using (buffer-size) directly, but what about using (position-bytes (buffer-size)) instead? -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk