Subject: Re: bug#13949: 24.4.1; `fill-paragraph' should not always put the buffer as modified

From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 18:29:21 +0200

Óscar Fuentes <[email-masked]> writes:

> Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <[email-masked]> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
>> So on to the specific problem of `M-q' again: If we think the general
>> solution is a no go, would it still make sense to do the hash-the-buffer
>> solution just for `M-q'?  That is, does `M-q' ever change text
>> properties in a way that we want maintained without changing the text
>> itself?  I think the answer to the last question is "no", but I'm not
>> sure.
>
> To be precise, the question is not about *maintaining* the changed
> properties (nobody suggested to throw them away) but about marking the
> buffer as modified just because those properties [might have] changed.

I've been trying to `M-q' stuff in a handful of different modes, and
there doesn't seem to be any text property changes at all, as far as I
can see.  (When the text doesn't change, that is.)

So I could just commit the changes I've got here (the new `hash-buffer'
function and the `M-q' changes, along with unit tests and doc fixes),
and then we can see how this feels and whether there are any gotchas.

And then ponder the more general issues later.

Does that sound OK to everybody?

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