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

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: "Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob <at> tcd.ie>, Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: larsi <at> gnus.org, 49160 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#49160: 28.0.50; [PATCH] Uninitialized inhibit_buffer_hooks
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 09:39:47 +0200

> From: "Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob <at> tcd.ie>
> Cc: larsi <at> gnus.org,  49160 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,  dick.r.chiang <at> gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 21:16:20 +0000
> 
> Eli Zaretskii [2023-01-11 15:22 -0500] wrote:
> 
> >> 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
> >> 
> >> 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.
> 
> Right, but it's inhibited together with 'strict' buffer-hooks (and
> documented as such) everywhere except for make-indirect-buffer: see
> get-buffer-create, generate-new-buffer, struct buffer, "(elisp) Buffer
> List", "(elisp) Creating Buffers", "(elisp) Buffer Internals", and
> etc/NEWS.28.
> 
> In fact, "(elisp) Indirect Buffers" even says about
> make-indirect-buffer:
> 
>      *Note Creating Buffers, for the meaning of INHIBIT-BUFFER-HOOKS.
> 
> Where "(elisp) Creating Buffers" elaborates:
> 
>      Both functions accept an optional argument INHIBIT-BUFFER-HOOKS.  If
>   it is non-‘nil’, the buffer they create does not run the hooks
>   ‘kill-buffer-hook’, ‘kill-buffer-query-functions’ (*note Killing
>   Buffers), and ‘buffer-list-update-hook’ (*note Buffer List).  This
>   avoids slowing down internal or temporary buffers that are never
>   presented to users or passed on to other applications.
> 
> So while inhibit-buffer-hooks may be a slightly loose name, I think
> make-indirect-buffer should nevertheless heed it for
> buffer-list-update-hook as well, for the same reason this is done
> everywhere else.
> 
> > So I'm not sure we want this.  What is the real-life use case behind
> > this request?
> 
> The real-life use case is satisfying this bug report+patch from me,
> fixing what seems like a simple oversight, and the ensuing peace of mind
> that I will be grateful for, of course ;).

Stefan, WDYT?

Previous Next

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