GNU bug report logs - #65734
29.1.50; kill-whole-line and visibility of Org subtrees

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Sebastian Miele <iota <at> whxvd.name>

Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 14:49:02 UTC

Severity: normal

Found in version 29.1.50

Done: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #56 received at 65734 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Sebastian Miele <iota <at> whxvd.name>
To: Ihor Radchenko <yantar92 <at> posteo.net>
Cc: emacs-orgmode <at> gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 65734 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#65734: [BUG] kill-whole-line on folded subtrees [9.6.8
 (release_9.6.8-3-g21171d @ /home/w/usr/emacs/0/29/0/lisp/org/)]
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2023 17:04:48 +0200
> From: Ihor Radchenko <yantar92 <at> posteo.net>
> Date: Wed, 2023-09-06 08:30 +0000
>
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>>> It would also make sense to group the two edits together via
>>> `combine-after-change-calls', although a more universal way to know that
>>> certain edits are a part of the same known command (even when called
>>> non-interactively) would be useful.
>>
>> The command kills in two parts for a good reason, which is explained
>> in the comments to the code.  So making a single group will not work,
>> I think, at least not in all situations.
>
> I think there is misunderstanding. `combine-after-change-calls' will not
> affect the two-step modification of the kill ring, if we put it around
> `kill-whole-line'. Or do I miss something?

I tried to wrap the problematic portion of `kill-whole-line' into
`combine-after-change-calls'.  It seems to have no effect.  The
after-change function `org-fold-core--fix-folded-region' still gets
called twice, not fixing the bug.  I did not dig deeper, because the
stuff that makes `combine-after-change-calls' work at least partially
goes in C and seems to be scattered over several places.

The Emacs Lisp manual states that `combine-after-change-calls' "arranges
to call the after-change functions just once for a series of several
changes—if that seems safe."  So this case does not seem safe.  Apart
from that, there is no stated guarantee for when it would seem it safe.

I conclude that, although this path looked possibly elegant at first,
and I wanted to give it a try, this cannot work out.




This bug report was last modified 329 days ago.

Previous Next


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