GNU bug report logs - #23632
25.1.50; Gratuitous undo boundary in latex-insert-block

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: "Phillip Lord" <phillip.lord <at> russet.org.uk>
To: "Stefan Monnier" <monnier <at> IRO.UMontreal.CA>
Cc: Chong Yidong <cyd <at> gnu.org>, 23632 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Phillip Lord <phillip.lord <at> russet.org.uk>
Subject: bug#23632: 25.1.50; Gratuitous undo boundary in latex-insert-block
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 09:51:15 +0100

On Sat, June 4, 2016 4:05 am, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>>> Simple let binding would not give quite the same functionality,
>>>> because of the last part -- I also add a boundary to buffers with a
>>>> greater recursive depth; with a let binding, I think these would be
>>>> unbound for commands that lower the recursion depth.
>>> Ah, you mean that the value of undo-auto--undoably-changed-buffers
>>> needs to be propagated "out" when we leave the let-binding.
>> I *think* so -- I'm not entirely sure. It might make no difference.
>>
>
> It makes a difference, since otherwise we may forget that some changes
> were made in a buffer and fail to push a boundary for them.  Not super
> terribly serious, admittedly.

Yes. This is assuming that commands *both* change recursion depth *and*
change a buffer. If they are separate then there will no changes in the
buffer. Since I don't know this to be true, I am assuming that it isn't.

>
>> I use this variable in several different places in two different places
>>  though
>
> Not sure what you mean by "use", and there's clearly some typo about
> "places" which makes the meaning even more murky.

I change the value in this variable at one point (after each
undoable-change) by adding a buffer to it, access at one point (to find
boundaries that need amalgamating) and access it then nil parts of it at
another (to find buffers that need boundaries).

>
>> -- once when we capture the undoable changes (which happens
>> often) and once on at the end of each command.
>
> Right.  I see no need for any changes there.

Really? I have to know the recursion depth at this point

>> I'd have to do this let binding in the command loop?
>>
>
> We'd need this right when we enter a recursive-edit (minibuffer or not),
> so maybe doing it when we enter the command loop would work.
>
>> My current solution seems simpler, even if it does feel like I have
>> created "recursion-level" local variables.
>
> My impression that a let-binding plus a call to
> undo-auto--ensure-boundary will be simpler than your patch.  But it's hard
> to be sure until it's actually implemented.

To be clear, though, to do this I need to augment recursive-edit in C? I
need the let binding to last the life of the recursive edit?

Not being difficult here, just struggling to understand.

Phil

Previous Next

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