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

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Christopher Schmidt <christopher <at> ch.ristopher.com>
Subject: bug#13017: closed (Re: bug#13017: 24.2.90; minibuf-eldef-setup-minibuffer
 should append minibuf-eldef-update-minibuffer to post-command-hook)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 21:26:06 +0000

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

Your bug report

#13017: 24.2.90; minibuf-eldef-setup-minibuffer should append minibuf-eldef-update-minibuffer to post-command-hook

which was filed against the emacs package, has been closed.

The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to 13017 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

-- 
13017: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=13017
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

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...

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

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 4 (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 6 (text/plain, inline)]

        Christopher

Previous Next

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