GNU bug report logs - #13017
24.2.90; minibuf-eldef-setup-minibuffer should append minibuf-eldef-update-minibuffer to post-command-hook

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 13017 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 13017 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Schmidt <christopher <at> ch.ristopher.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 24.2.90; minibuf-eldef-setup-minibuffer should append
	minibuf-eldef-update-minibuffer to post-command-hook
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 00:10:54 +0000 (GMT)

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

In minibuf-eldef-setup-minibuffer there is this form

    (add-hook 'post-command-hook #'minibuf-eldef-update-minibuffer nil t)

I think this is not correct.  The APPEND parameter of add-hook should be
t so all changes made to the minibuffer content by previous functions in
post-command-hook are taken into account by
minibuf-eldef-update-minibuffer.

Here is a patch for the trunk.

[minibuf-eldef.diff (text/x-diff, inline)]

=== modified file 'lisp/ChangeLog'
--- lisp/ChangeLog	2012-11-27 16:40:04 +0000
+++ lisp/ChangeLog	2012-11-28 00:07:24 +0000
@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+2012-11-28  Christopher Schmidt  <christopher <at> ch.ristopher.com>
+
+	* minibuf-eldef.el (minibuf-eldef-setup-minibuffer): Append
+	minibuf-eldef-update-minibuffer to post-command-hook.  (Bug#)
+
 2012-11-27  Glenn Morris  <rgm <at> gnu.org>
 
 	* emacs-lisp/derived.el (derived-mode-make-docstring):

=== modified file 'lisp/minibuf-eldef.el'
--- lisp/minibuf-eldef.el	2012-11-07 20:43:38 +0000
+++ lisp/minibuf-eldef.el	2012-11-28 00:05:45 +0000
@@ -140,7 +140,7 @@
 	    (minibuffer-contents-no-properties))
       (setq minibuf-eldef-initial-buffer-length (point-max))
       (add-to-list 'minibuf-eldef-frobbed-minibufs (current-buffer))
-      (add-hook 'post-command-hook #'minibuf-eldef-update-minibuffer nil t))))
+      (add-hook 'post-command-hook #'minibuf-eldef-update-minibuffer t t))))
 
 ;; post-command-hook to swap prompts when necessary
 (defun minibuf-eldef-update-minibuffer ()

[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]

        Christopher

Message #8 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#13017: 24.2.90; minibuf-eldef-setup-minibuffer should append
	minibuf-eldef-update-minibuffer to post-command-hook
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 20:42:35 -0500

> In minibuf-eldef-setup-minibuffer there is this form

>     (add-hook 'post-command-hook #'minibuf-eldef-update-minibuffer nil t)

> I think this is not correct.  The APPEND parameter of add-hook should be
> t so all changes made to the minibuffer content by previous functions in
> post-command-hook are taken into account by
> minibuf-eldef-update-minibuffer.

That sounds reasonable, but I'd be happier to know of a concrete example
where this was needed.


        Stefan

Message #13 received at 13017 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Christopher Schmidt <christopher <at> ch.ristopher.com>
Cc: 13017 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#13017: 24.2.90; minibuf-eldef-setup-minibuffer should append
 minibuf-eldef-update-minibuffer to post-command-hook
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 16:55:44 -0800

Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>> In minibuf-eldef-setup-minibuffer there is this form
>
>>     (add-hook 'post-command-hook #'minibuf-eldef-update-minibuffer nil t)
>
>> I think this is not correct.  The APPEND parameter of add-hook should be
>> t so all changes made to the minibuffer content by previous functions in
>> post-command-hook are taken into account by
>> minibuf-eldef-update-minibuffer.
>
> That sounds reasonable, but I'd be happier to know of a concrete example
> where this was needed.

Christopher, do you have an example that demonstrates why this is needed?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/

Message #18 received at 13017-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Schmidt <ch <at> ristopher.com>
To: 13017-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#13017: 24.2.90; minibuf-eldef-setup-minibuffer should append
 minibuf-eldef-update-minibuffer to post-command-hook
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:03:49 -0400 (EDT)

Tags: notabug

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:
> Christopher, do you have an example that demonstrates why this is
> needed?

IIRC, I played around with another prompt-simplifying form in
post-command-hook.  I do not have the source code any more.

It is easy to come up with an artificial sample which demonstrates this
issue.  Yet, even if minibuf-eldef-update-minibuffer is appended to
post-command-hook, does this change actually improve the situation?  I
do not think so.  It is not hard to come up with another sample which
requires the initial behaviour.

This issue is probably not a bug and does not matter to me any more.
Closing...

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.