GNU bug report logs - #71466
30.0.50; Buffer-menu-group-by non-nil resets point when Buffer List is reverted

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Eshel Yaron <me <at> eshelyaron.com>
Cc: dmitry <at> gutov.dev, 71466 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, juri <at> linkov.net
Subject: bug#71466: 30.0.50; Buffer-menu-group-by non-nil resets point when Buffer List is reverted
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 17:46:10 +0300

> From: Eshel Yaron <me <at> eshelyaron.com>
> Cc: dmitry <at> gutov.dev,  71466 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,  juri <at> linkov.net
> Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 16:01:40 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >>  @item g
> >> -@findex xref-revert-buffer
> >> -Refresh the contents of the @file{*xref*} buffer
> >> -(@code{xref-revert-buffer}).
> >> +Refresh the contents of the @file{*xref*} buffer (@code{revert-buffer}).
> >> +@xref{Reverting}.
> >
> > Why remove the index entry?  It needs to be rewritten, not removed.
> 
> The index entry is for xref-revert-buffer, which we're making obsolete
> here in favor of revert-buffer, which has its own index entry elsewhere.
> How do you suggest rewriting it instead?

Like this:

  @cindex revert-buffer, in @file{*xref*} buffers

And please move it before "@item g", so that following the index entry
with 'i' in Info lands on the line showing `g', not the line after it.

> >> -(defun xref-revert-buffer ()
> >> +(defun xref--revert-buffer (&rest _)     ; Ignore `revert-buffer' args.
> >>    "Refresh the search results in the current buffer."
> >
> > And I wonder why you preferred a backward-incompatible change to a
> > backward-compatible one:
> 
> This is intended to be (basically) fully backward-compatible:
> xref-revert-buffer becomes an alias of revert-buffer, which does exactly
> what xref-revert-buffer would do.

Yes, but why not leave xref-revert-buffer alone, under its original
name?

> > leave the function's name alone, and just set up
> > revert-buffer-function to invoke it.  Was this not possible for some
> > technical reason that evades me?
> 
> It's possible, and it's more or less what I suggested upthread, but
> Dmitry correctly noted that this approach (using xref--revert-buffer)
> improves backward-compatibility in the following sense: users that
> currently invoke xref-revert-buffer not by pressing 'g', but in some
> other way, can continue to do so and get the same behavior that now
> revert-buffer provides when you press 'g'.  Since revert-buffer does
> more than just calling revert-buffer-function (namely, it also runs
> revert-buffer-restore-functions), making xref-revert-buffer an alias of
> revert-buffer ensures invoking and xref-revert-buffer and pressing 'g'
> continues to behave the same.

But the original xref-revert-buffer didn't do all those other things,
did it?  So invoking it directly will be more similar to what that did
before.

Previous Next

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