Re: insert-file-contents and format-decode

[Richard Stallman]

     >     We have a plan for dealing with functions called by `format-decode'. 
 We
     >     do not have a plan yet for dealing with 
`after-insert-file-functions'.
     >     Shall we treat functions there the same way we treat functions 
called by
     >     `format-decode'?
     >
     > If it's good for one, it's probably good for the other.  Consistency
     > between the two features is also good.
     >
     > Do you see any reason NOT to do so?

    We could introduce one: Keep `format-decode' for practical use and
    `after-insert-file-functions' for applications that want to fine-tune
    every single step of the decoding process.

Incoherence is a minus, not a plus.  If there is no specific reason
to treat them differentlky, let's treat them the same!

    I already changed my mind: I now think instead that `format-decode' and
    `after-insert-file-functions' _should_ be able to detect whether the
    insertion is done at the beginning of the current buffer or any other
    position (simply by comparing the `begin' argument with `point-min'
    wthout any need to widen the buffer).

If you think that's useful, then let's not insert a save-restriction.

So the only remaining change to be done is to inhibit execution of
certain hooks in `format-decode' and around the calls to
`after-insert-file-functions'.

Would you like to implement this?