From unknown Tue Aug 19 08:37:15 2025 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.509 (Entity 5.509) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: bug#6525 <6525@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#6525 <6525@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: documentation of macro `with-silent-modifications' 1 typo + multi-horrid Reply-To: bug#6525 <6525@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2025 15:37:15 +0000 retitle 6525 documentation of macro `with-silent-modifications' 1 typo + m= ulti-horrid reassign 6525 emacs submitter 6525 MON KEY severity 6525 minor tag 6525 fixed thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jun 28 03:36:19 2010 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Jun 2010 07:36:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OT8t9-0005XP-4f for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 03:36:19 -0400 Received: from mail.gnu.org ([199.232.76.166] helo=mx10.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OT8t7-0005XK-2b for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 03:36:17 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]:38228) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OT8t4-0006mb-0H for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 03:36:14 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=33131 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OT8t1-0007Cz-Rx for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 03:36:13 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.1 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OT8t0-0007cv-IO for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 03:36:11 -0400 Received: from mail-pw0-f41.google.com ([209.85.160.41]:56343) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OT8t0-0007ck-Dv for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 03:36:10 -0400 Received: by pwi3 with SMTP id 3so332881pwi.0 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 00:36:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.114.30.6 with SMTP id d6mr4853367wad.135.1277710569039; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 00:36:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.150.4 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 00:36:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 03:36:09 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: AhE7ICIFFskJOWn-WeGxnM9boMw Message-ID: Subject: documentation of macro `with-silent-modifications' 1 typo + multi-horrid From: MON KEY To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-Spam-Score: -3.8 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -5.1 (-----) documentation of macro `with-silent-modifications' lisp/subr.el current through Bzr-100654 There is a typo @ "... does not modifies the buffer." should be "... does not modify the buffer." More generally the docstring is bordering on non-sensical. ,---- (documentation 'with-silent-modifications) | | "Execute BODY, pretending it does not modifies the buffer. | If BODY performs real modifications to the buffer's text, other than | cosmetic ones, undo data may become corrupted. Typically used | around modifications of text-properties which do not really affect | the buffer's content." | `---- Execute BODY, pretending it does not modifies the buffer. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ modify ^^^^^^|^^^^^ what is a `pretend' which buffer? If BODY performs real modifications to the buffer's text, other than ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ what is a non-real mod? ??? cosmetic ones, undo data may become corrupted. Typically used ^^^|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|^^^^^^^^^^^^^ what is non-cosmetic? | what is an atypical usage? | why not say `buffer-undo-list'? around modifications of text-properties which do not really affect ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ what is the affector txt-prop or the mod? the buffer's content. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^|^^^^^^ exactly what _is_ content - chars, tps, overlays, fields, faces? -- /s_P\ From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Jun 30 21:46:22 2010 Received: (at 6525) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Jul 2010 01:46:22 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OU8r7-0006NO-Ou for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 21:46:22 -0400 Received: from smtp-03.vtx.ch ([194.38.175.92]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OU8r5-0006NJ-TN for 6525@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 21:46:20 -0400 Received: from ceviche.home (dyn.144-85-133-055.dsl.vtx.ch [144.85.133.55]) by smtp-03.vtx.ch (VTX Services SA) with ESMTP id 93165296CCF; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 03:46:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 1818A662B0; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 03:10:11 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan Monnier To: MON KEY Subject: Re: bug#6525: documentation of macro `with-silent-modifications' 1 typo + multi-horrid Message-ID: References: Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 03:10:11 +0200 In-Reply-To: (MON KEY's message of "Mon, 28 Jun 2010 03:36:09 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6525 Cc: 6525@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) > cosmetic ones, undo data may become corrupted. Typically used > ^^^|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > what is non-cosmetic? | what is an atypical usage? > | > why not say `buffer-undo-list'? Docstrings should generally only document what the function/macro does, rather than how they're used. So the "typical uses" I put here is actually a bad idea, tho it was just easier to do that than to try and describe what the macro does, especially since it's really the use for which it's designed. I don't know what atypical uses might be, and don't care about them (at least until they come complaining about some undesirable part of the behavior). > around modifications of text-properties which do not really affect > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > what is the affector txt-prop or the mod? Some other code: the caller would presumably know. > the buffer's content. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^|^^^^^^ > exactly what _is_ content - chars, tps, overlays, fields, faces? Can be any of it, depending on the case, because it's a conceptual notion, rather than a technical one: typically "modify the buffer's content" means "saving the buffer results in a different file". Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Jul 01 19:07:20 2010 Received: (at 6525) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Jul 2010 23:07:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OUSqm-0007IW-5Y for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2010 19:07:20 -0400 Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com ([209.85.160.172]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OUSqk-0007IP-AT for 6525@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 01 Jul 2010 19:07:18 -0400 Received: by gyh3 with SMTP id 3so1373393gyh.3 for <6525@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 01 Jul 2010 16:07:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.101.26.33 with SMTP id d33mr203404anj.140.1278025634156; Thu, 01 Jul 2010 16:07:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.46.4 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 16:07:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 19:07:14 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Ghiq8CMaza4xjjANOWowo92wI-M Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#6525: documentation of macro `with-silent-modifications' 1 typo + multi-horrid From: MON KEY To: Stefan Monnier Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6525 Cc: 6525@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -3.1 (---) On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> ,---- (documentation 'with-silent-modifications) >> | >> | "Execute BODY, pretending it does not modifies the buffer. >> | If BODY performs real modifications to the buffer's text, other than >> | cosmetic ones, undo data may become corrupted. Typically used >> | around modifications of text-properties which do not really affect >> | the buffer's content." >> | >> `---- > Docstrings should generally only document what the function/macro > does, rather than how they're used. So the "typical uses" I put > here is actually a bad idea, tho it was just easier to do that than > to try and describe what the macro does, {...} Indeed, this may be so, but it certainly isn't any easier for me to understand what it does. I absolutely can not understand what is meant by the docstring. Though, really, I typically do pretend at understanding these types of things unless the content is not other than cosmetic such that it can not perform any real modifications affecting my perspective of these things :-P > I don't know what atypical uses might be, and don't care about them If it has typical usage then it has atypical usage. Presumably that the macro exists suggests that there is a typical usage. The macro would go away if it didn't have a typical usage. That it doesn't suggests _someone_ cares about partitioning the typical from the atypical usage whether you do or not. If such usage is typical enough so as to support creation of the macro it would seem reasonable to expect a resasonable documentation of what it should be expected to do -- and, it should say so without over reliance on vacuous terms like `pretending', `really', `typically', `cosmetic', `real modifications', `content' etc. > (at least until they come complaining about some undesirable part of > the behavior). Thats a nice long rope you've given users. Maybe they get lost at the outer regions of that tether in which case they aren't likely to come complaining... What behaviour would you expect them to complain about if they can not deduce from the docstring what it is they should expect this macro to do? >> around modifications of text-properties which do not really affect >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> what is the affector txt-prop or the mod? > > Some other code: the caller would presumably know. How could a caller modify text-properties which do not _really_ affect the buffer? They either do affect whehter the buffer is modified or they don't. More precisely, what are the text-properties that do not _really_ affect a/the buffer? >> the buffer's content. >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^|^^^^^^ >> exactly what _is_ content - chars, tps, overlays, fields, faces? > > Can be any of it, depending on the case, because it's a conceptual Whose conceptual notion, the callers, yours, or Emacs' vis a vis `buffer-modified-p'? > notion, rather than a technical one: typically "modify the buffer's > content" means "saving the buffer results in a different file". The use of `content' here is not good. The term is too "conceptually" overloaded to be of any use in the context of which it is used. > Stefan --- /s_P From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jul 04 13:44:49 2010 Received: (at 6525) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Jul 2010 17:44:49 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OVTFJ-00024o-AC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 04 Jul 2010 13:44:49 -0400 Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OVTFG-00024i-Hv for 6525@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 04 Jul 2010 13:44:47 -0400 Received: from alfajor.home (vpn-132-204-232-76.acd.umontreal.ca [132.204.232.76]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o64HidRP000687; Sun, 4 Jul 2010 13:44:40 -0400 Received: by alfajor.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 371FBBB47B; Sun, 4 Jul 2010 19:21:50 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan Monnier To: MON KEY Subject: Re: bug#6525: documentation of macro `with-silent-modifications' 1 Message-ID: References: Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2010 19:21:50 +0200 In-Reply-To: (MON KEY's message of "Thu, 1 Jul 2010 19:07:14 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV3570=0 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6525 Cc: 6525@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) > I absolutely can not understand what is meant by the docstring. Here's an another try: Run BODY normally, but don't count its buffer modifications as being buffer modifications. This affects things like buffer-modified-p, checking whether the file is locked by someone else, running buffer modification hooks, ... > What behaviour would you expect them to complain about if they can not > deduce from the docstring what it is they should expect this macro to > do? No idea. They'd make up their own idea of what the macro does, then find it doesn't perform as they expect it, and they complain. That will either let us fix the macro to better reflect their understanding, or improve the docstring to avoid the confusion. >>> the buffer's content. >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^|^^^^^^ >>> exactly what _is_ content - chars, tps, overlays, fields, faces? >> Can be any of it, depending on the case, because it's a conceptual > Whose conceptual notion, the callers, yours, or Emacs' vis a vis > `buffer-modified-p'? The conceptual notion of the guy who decides to use this macro. In a sense, the use of the macro is a way for the programmer to tell Emacs what is "a real modification" (it does it by telling: anything that happens within BODY is not "a real modification"). Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Jul 06 17:29:15 2010 Received: (at 6525) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Jul 2010 21:29:15 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OWFhb-0006IE-0t for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 17:29:15 -0400 Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com ([74.125.83.44]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OWFhZ-0006I9-9Q for 6525@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 17:29:14 -0400 Received: by gwb10 with SMTP id 10so3342927gwb.3 for <6525@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 14:29:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.90.91.17 with SMTP id o17mr1119840agb.72.1278451748937; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 14:29:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.46.4 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Jul 2010 14:29:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 17:29:08 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5q4DUWN_KM8LCVj6aE7OiuKPFns Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#6525: documentation of macro `with-silent-modifications' 1 From: MON KEY To: Stefan Monnier Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6525 Cc: 6525@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -3.2 (---) On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> I absolutely can not understand what is meant by the docstring. > > Here's an another try: > > Run BODY normally, but don't count its buffer modifications as being > buffer modifications. > This affects things like buffer-modified-p, checking whether the file > is locked by someone else, running buffer modification hooks, ... > How about this: Evaluate BODY with any changes which would otherwise set the buffer as modified discarded such that buffer changes within BODY: - will not satisfy the `buffer-modified-p' predicate; - will not clobber the `buffer-undo-list'; - will not cause a mode-line update as per `set-buffer-modified-p'; - will not trigger running of modification-hooks which respond to buffer changes including `before-change-functions' and `after-change-functions'; - will not force redisplay around modifications of buffer text having text-property and overlay hooks; - will not trigger buffer related file-locking and unlocking. >> What behaviour would you expect them to complain about if they can not >> deduce from the docstring what it is they should expect this macro to >> do? > > No idea. They'd make up their own idea of what the macro does, then > find it doesn't perform as they expect it, and they complain. That will > either let us fix the macro to better reflect their understanding, or > improve the docstring to avoid the confusion. > My old man calls me last night w/ a problem: "How do I get my back arrow back. Firefox lost it." He made his own mind up what the problem was... but Firefox wasn't broken it just didn't perform as expcected when he toggled the GUI navigation checkbox of his nav bar. I can't imagine it being a very good idea to expect uniformed users to inform you as to how to tweak a macro they neither understand (or otherwise endow with exceptionally magical powers) any more than I can imagine letting me father direct the Mozilla project according to his design spec :) :SEE (URL `http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000356.html') > > The conceptual notion of the guy who decides to use this macro. > In a sense, the use of the macro is a way for the programmer to tell > Emacs what is "a real modification" (it does it by telling: anything > that happens within BODY is not "a real modification"). > That explanation made perfect sense for me. Thank you. > > Stefan > -- /s_P\ From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Jul 13 19:41:14 2011 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Jul 2011 23:41:15 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qh93K-0008Ss-HM for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:41:14 -0400 Received: from hermes.netfonds.no ([80.91.224.195]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qh93I-0008Sg-HF for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:41:12 -0400 Received: from cm-84.215.51.58.getinternet.no ([84.215.51.58] helo=quimbies.gnus.org) by hermes.netfonds.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Qh937-0007Hz-OP for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 01:41:01 +0200 Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 01:41:01 +0200 Message-Id: To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen Subject: control message for bug #6525 X-MailScanner-ID: 1Qh937-0007Hz-OP X-Netfonds-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Netfonds-MailScanner-From: larsi@gnus.org MailScanner-NULL-Check: 1311205261.87321@x9jHIegTwbkGS/onIkDZGQ X-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) tags 6525 fixed close 6525 24.1 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Jul 13 19:51:29 2011 Received: (at 6525) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Jul 2011 23:51:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qh9DF-00017q-9a for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:51:29 -0400 Received: from hermes.netfonds.no ([80.91.224.195]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qh9DB-000170-05 for 6525@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:51:25 -0400 Received: from cm-84.215.51.58.getinternet.no ([84.215.51.58] helo=quimbies.gnus.org) by hermes.netfonds.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Qh9Cv-0007SD-Tj; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 01:51:09 +0200 From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen To: Stefan Monnier Subject: Re: bug#6525: documentation of macro `with-silent-modifications' 1 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Sun, 04 Jul 2010 19:21:50 +0200") Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 01:40:57 +0200 Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-Now-Playing: Depeche Mode's _A Broken Frame_: "Monument" X-Hashcash: 1:23:110713:monkey@sandpframing.com::N8Qt4xeVjZFX0of8:000000000000000000000000000000000000006CmK X-Hashcash: 1:23:110713:6525@debbugs.gnu.org::l0Rao1EMhiuwe8N8:000000000000000000000000000000000000000003UEv X-Hashcash: 1:23:110713:monnier@iro.umontreal.ca::TDcFKWs/02NRsqIE:0000000000000000000000000000000000000D7Ye MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-MailScanner-ID: 1Qh9Cv-0007SD-Tj X-Netfonds-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Netfonds-MailScanner-From: larsi@gnus.org MailScanner-NULL-Check: 1311205869.99457@D18wO1CZkP6Ms1dtgYFx8A X-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6525 Cc: MON KEY , 6525@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) Stefan Monnier writes: > Here's an another try: > > Run BODY normally, but don't count its buffer modifications as being > buffer modifications. > This affects things like buffer-modified-p, checking whether the file > is locked by someone else, running buffer modification hooks, ... I've installed a version of this now. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/ From unknown Tue Aug 19 08:37:15 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:24:05 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator