[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu
From: |
martin rudalics |
Subject: |
Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu |
Date: |
Sat, 22 Jul 2006 11:01:00 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) |
> 1. Should the value returned by `buffer-chars-modified-tick' always
> (invariantly) imply the value returned by `buffer-modified-tick'?
>
> I do not understand "imply" in this context.
Sorry. I was thinking about a function `buffer-chars-modified-p' and
intended to ask the following question:
1. Should the value returned by `buffer-chars-modified-p' always
(invariantly) imply the value returned by `buffer-modified-p'?
Anyway, it's implied by the following.
>
> With
> other words, suppose we have a thing called CHAR_MODIFF: Would we have
> to support the invariant
>
> MODIFF >= CHAR_MODIFF >= SAVE_MODIFF
>
> Yes, that is the idea.
But now I'm in doubt whether I reasoned correctly. It would mean that
when I save a buffer and thusly update save_modiff I'd have to update
char_modiff as well to preserve that invariant. As a consequence,
clients like imenu would conclude that an insertion/deletion occurred
although, in fact, the buffer was only saved.
Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, martin rudalics, 2006/07/21
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, Richard Stallman, 2006/07/22
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, martin rudalics, 2006/07/23
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, martin rudalics, 2006/07/23
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, Richard Stallman, 2006/07/24
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, martin rudalics, 2006/07/26
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, Stefan Monnier, 2006/07/26
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, martin rudalics, 2006/07/26