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: Display feature request: gud-overlay-arrow Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:50:25 +0100 Message-ID: References: <17439.13250.269939.241145@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1143049964 17430 80.91.229.2 (22 Mar 2006 17:52:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:52:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: nickrob@snap.net.nz, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 22 18:52:35 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FM7VU-0000b3-Sp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:52:29 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FM7VU-0000mh-23 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:52:28 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FM7VE-0000lD-60 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:52:12 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FM7VB-0000jf-23 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:52:10 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FM7VA-0000jS-Km for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:52:08 -0500 Original-Received: from [195.41.46.236] (helo=pfepb.post.tele.dk) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FM7VU-0000hK-Cs; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:52:28 -0500 Original-Received: from kfs-l.imdomain.dk.cua.dk (0x503e2644.bynxx3.adsl-dhcp.tele.dk [80.62.38.68]) by pfepb.post.tele.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id AE8A5A50004; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:51:55 +0100 (CET) Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Wed, 22 Mar 2006 08:44:20 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) 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:51967 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: > It cannot possibly be worse than the current abuse of the post-command-hook > to do all sorts of things that would be better done by specific hooks like: > > > post-switch-buffer-hook (when last command switched buffers) > post-switch-window-hook (when last command switched windows) > post-modify-buffer-hook (when last command modified selected buffer) > > Yes it can be worse. With post-command-hook, things may happen while > a certain buffer is current, but switching away and back has no effect > on them. I think I have expressed myself unclearly. The above hooks should not be called on-the-fly, but be executed just ONCE (if applicable) _after_ running post-command-hook. It would provide a safe way for code to do special things when the _user_ switches buffers or windows or modifies a buffer. > > Please consider the issue closed. Ok. -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk