From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Samuel Wales <samologist@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Sticky Agenda buffer: Announcement and request for testing
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 12:21:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJcAo8sMVmnacVn+BBm=fyxtFw2jCCA1KNMVFXeTamQ0Ai7NRg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <65860CF1-3D9B-497B-8EF7-AA7E87B28BEE@uva.nl> <herme@fi.upm.es>
	<20319.33874.900923.628931@gazelle.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58667)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <samologist@gmail.com>) id 1S7XI8-0002fB-VC
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:21:58 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <samologist@gmail.com>) id 1S7XI7-0007Ut-2q
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:21:52 -0400
Received: from mail-iy0-f169.google.com ([209.85.210.169]:46960)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <samologist@gmail.com>) id 1S7XI6-0007UJ-R5
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:21:50 -0400
Received: by iajr24 with SMTP id r24so1426485iaj.0
	for <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 12:21:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20319.33874.900923.628931@gazelle.local>
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Manuel Hermenegildo <herme@fi.upm.es>
Cc: Org Mode List <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>, "Dominik,
	Carsten" <C.Dominik@uva.nl>

Cannot test at this time, but I have an a priori comment.

Having multiple agenda buffers around increases the probability that
you will change the outline buffers before you perform an operation in
the agenda.  You might do this either by performing agenda commands in
an agenda buffer or by directly editing the outline buffer.

As the agenda uses markers to get to the outline buffer, this
increases the probability that you will perform an operation that will
corrupt the outline buffer.

I have not thought about this deeply, but perhaps every agenda command
should perform a rudimentary check, if possible, to make sure the
marker still points to where it did when the agenda in which it was
called was created.

This might entail storing header strings, or the like.  It might not be ideal.

However, I have noticed buffer corruption in the past and I think it
would be good to keep this risk in mind in case we can come up with
ways of making agenda commands safer.

I avoid using the agenda because I don't always know if the marker
still points where it should.

Hope this helps.

Samuel

-- 
The Kafka Pandemic: http://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com