GNU bug report logs - #49160
28.0.50; [PATCH] Uninitialized inhibit_buffer_hooks

Previous Next

Full log

Message #26 received at 49160 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: "Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob <at> tcd.ie>
Cc: larsi <at> gnus.org, 49160 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, dick.r.chiang <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#49160: 28.0.50; [PATCH] Uninitialized inhibit_buffer_hooks
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 22:23:01 +0200

> From: "Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob <at> tcd.ie>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>,  49160 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,  dick
>  <dick.r.chiang <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 20:13:21 +0000
> 
> >> More to the point: since this attribute of a buffer cannot be changed
> >> once the buffer is created, I think it might be okay to copy from the
> >> base buffer, but we should also allow the caller to control that by
> >> introducing an optional argument similar to that of get-buffer-create.
> >> And if we do that, we could also consider making the default value be
> >> nil, not necessarily a copy of that of the base buffer.
> >
> > I've now applied Dick's patch, and then adjusted as you suggest.
> 
> Fmake_indirect_buffer continues to run buffer-list-update-hook
> regardless of the new argument.  Any objections to changing that?

buffer-list-update-hook is not a buffer-hook, strictly speaking.  So
I'm not sure we want this.  What is the real-life use case behind this
request?

Previous Next

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