GNU bug report logs - #70077
An easier way to track buffer changes

Previous Next

Full log

Message #38 received at 70077 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: phillip.lord <at> russet.org.uk
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: Ihor Radchenko <yantar92 <at> posteo.net>, 70077 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>, Qiantan Hong <qhong <at> alum.mit.edu>,
 Frédéric Bour <frederic.bour <at> lakaban.net>,
 João Távora <joaotavora <at> gmail.com>,
 Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>, Alan Mackenzie <acm <at> muc.de>,
 Stephen Leake <stephen_leake <at> stephe-leake.org>,
 Alan Zimmerman <alan.zimm <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#70077: An easier way to track buffer changes
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 08:06:03 -0400

On 2024-03-29 18:59, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> If I remember correctly, I think this wouldn't be enough for my
>> use. You keep two buffers in sync, you have to use
>> before-change-function -- it is only before any change that the two
>> buffers are guaranteed to be in sync and it is this that allows you to
>> work out what the `start' and `end' positions mean in the copied
>> buffer. Afterward, you cannot work out what the end position because
>> you don't know if the change is a change, insertion, deletion or both.
> 
> I believe the API I propose does provide that information: you can
> recover the state of the buffer before the change (or more 
> specifically,
> the state of the buffer as of the last time you called
> track-changes-fetch) from the BEG/END/BEFORE arguments as follows:
> 
>     (concat (buffer-substring (point-min) beg)
>             before
>             (buffer-substring end (point-max)))
> 
> I don't mean to suggest to do that, since it's costly for large
> buffers, but to illustrate that the information is properly preserved.


Ah, yes, you are correct, I had missed that one. As you note, it would 
be costly,
especially because if you wanted to do anything with that data, you 
would probably
end up dumping it into a temp buffer.


>> Last time I checked, I did find relatively few primitives that were 
>> guilty
>> of being inconsistent -- in the case of `subst-char-in-region', it 
>> returned
>> the maximal area of effect before the and the minimal area of effect
>> after. Would it not be easier to fix these?
> 
> [ IIRC `revert-buffer` has a similar behavior, and in that case the
>   difference can be large since the "before" covers the whole buffer.  
> ]
> 
> Also, it would fix only the problem of pairing, and not the other ones.


Understood. It would be interesting to know how many primitives cause 
issues though.

Phil

Previous Next

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