GNU bug report logs -
#25111
How modification-hooks let-bind inhibit-modification-hooks?
Previous Next
Full log
Message #58 received at 25111 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hello, Eli.
To recap, the problem we were talking about was the modification-hooks
overlay property, whose value is a function which gets called before and
after modification of the text under an overlay.
When such a function gets called, inhibit-modification-hooks is left at
nil. When the other four similar overlay/text-property "change
functions" get called, inhibit-modification-hooks gets bound to t.
This is difficult to document coherently. My proposal of last week was
to fix the code, also to bin inhibit-modification-hooks to t for the
modification-hooks overlay property, even though this would be an
incompatibility in Lisp.
Ping? ----------------------------->-----------------------------------
|
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 14:31:09 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote: |
> Hello, Noam. |
|
> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 10:36:55 -0400, Noam Postavsky wrote: |
> > Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de> writes: |
|
> > >>> @@ -3621,9 +3621,14 @@ Special Properties |
|
> > >>> +When Emacs calls these functions, @code{inhibit-modification-hooks} is
> > >>> +set to @code{nil}. |
v
> > >> As Phillip mentioned in the OP, Emacs in fact binds it to t. |
|
> > > Are you sure? We're talking here about the text property (in which I
> > > think inhibit-modification-hooks IS at nil) as opposed to the overlay
> > > property (where inhibit-modification-hooks is bound to t). |
|
> > Oh, you're quite right. Here's some test code: |
|
> [ .... ] |
|
|
> > Which produces this: |
|
> > mod-hook-text-prop (1 4), inhibit? nil |
> > mod-hook-change-fun (1 4), inhibit? t |
> > mod-hook-ov-prop (#<overlay from 1 to 5 in *test*> nil 1 4), inhibit? t
> > mod-hook-change-fun (1 1 3), inhibit? t |
> > mod-hook-ov-prop (#<overlay from 1 to 2 in *test*> t 1 1 3), inhibit? t
> > mod-hook-change-fun (1 1), inhibit? t |
> > mod-hook-change-fun (1 4 0), inhibit? t |
|
> > I think we need to emphasize the difference in this case, it's rather
> > confusing. |
V
> Alternatively, we could perhaps regard the first of these results (for
> modification-hooks) as a bug in the code, which seems like it ought to be
> binding inhibit-modification-hooks to non-nil like the others. Maybe we
> should amend the code, even though this would be a jarring
> incompatibility with previous Emacs versions. Eli?
> [ .... ]
> > I've updated the patch based on your and Eli's feedback.
> Yes, I agree that "confusing the internal mechanism" is unhelpful here.
> Thanks for getting rid of it.
> [ .... ]
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
This bug report was last modified 6 years and 29 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.