Subject: RE: [External] : bug#75626: 31.0.50; Dired misses or double-processes files when auto-revert-mode is enabled

From: Drew Adams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 17:32:35 +0000

> > The macro itself should stay general & unassuming.
> 
> The plan is to change dired-buffer-stale-p so that it returns nil when
> inhibit-read-only is bound to a non-nil value which is the case during
> the execution of the code generated by dired-map-over-marks and might
> catch other cases, too.

Doesn't sound right, to me.

> The macro itself stays as-is.

Doesn't sound like its behavior stays the same,
whether from `dired-buffer-stale-p' or otherwise.

Let's not split hairs.  If you're changing its
behavior in a _general_ way, instead of just
changing the behavior realized in some function
that invokes it (e.g. by binding some vars around
its call), then you are, in effect, changing the
macro "itself".

Is that necessary?  I can't see why it would be.