Re: autorevert.el

[Stefan Monnier]

> Not all parts of the function check the modtime and the two parts
> where the modtime gets checked do it in different ways (dired can not
> use `verify-visited-file-modtime', because it is not visiting a file).
> It seems that the only thing that is done unconditionally in all cases
> is check (buffer-modified-p), so I changed the function to first check
> this before splitting into cases.

Too bad we can't do better, but thanks for double checking for me.

>    Also, I'd use file-remote-p rather than (string-match "@"),
>    especially since remote files might not include any @.

> You are right.  I kept this from the original code.  I did not check
> this carefully enough.  Note that I neither checked the code
> of the vc-part of the original patch, not tested it.

Well, you've already done more than most of us.

>    As for the auto-revert-flag thingy, I find it truly ugly because
>    I don't like dired knowing about auto-revert just for the sake of
>    verbosity control.  There's got to be a better way.

> Like what?

Dunno!

> I need some way to tell not only dired, but other non-file
> buffers as well, not to display the revert messages they usually do.

Like which others?  And why does dired display a message anyway?
It seems just wrong to me, since the user knows he reverted the buffer if
he did M-x revert-buffer (and indeed M-x revert-buffer in a file buffer
does not output any message).  It seems these messages should be output
(when needed) by the code that calls revert-buffer-function.
As does auto-revert, for example.
I.e. I suggest to just throw out the dired messages.

> I do not know whether you question the usefulness of the verbosity
> control itself.

No, your example of `make recompile' was pretty compelling already ;-)


        Stefan