[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history
From: |
Stefan |
Subject: |
bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated) |
Date: |
Wed, 19 Mar 2014 14:52:40 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
>> I'd have the same comment here, but if we emit a warning for sole
>> marker-adjustments in the "non-region" code, we don't really have to
>> worry about them here.
> If you're saying changes under undo-make-selective-list are not
> necessary, remember that currently it can create a list like:
No, I mean that it's OK to *assume* that any marker-adjustment we find
in the undo-region code is "right after a deletion". Of course, that's
only relevant if that can help us simplify the code.
>> I think we should only change the entry corresponding to a deletion
>> such that it directly handles all the immediately following
>> marker-adjustments
> They don't always immediately follow. An integer record can be between
> them. For example, at the end of the undo-test-marker-adjustment-moved
> test I posted previously, buffer-undo-list is:
> (nil (1 . 4) nil (abc . 1) 12 (#<marker at 7 in *temp*-216909> . -1) nil
> (1 . 12) (t . 0))
Right, the integer record is indeed also added by the deletion, so
we should still consider the marker adjustments to "immediately follow".
> * Implement your proposal but skip over the (t ...) and integer
> records
> * Restructure the C code so as marker adjustments are always
> immediately before deletion records
> * Revisit the approach of fixing markers that move to unrelated
> locations.
I think the first option is best (hopefully, the set of "things that can
come between the deletion and the marker adjustments" won't keep growing).
Stefan
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Barry OReilly, 2014/03/11
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Stefan Monnier, 2014/03/12
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Barry OReilly, 2014/03/12
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Stefan Monnier, 2014/03/13
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Stefan Monnier, 2014/03/13
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Barry OReilly, 2014/03/13
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Barry OReilly, 2014/03/17
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Stefan, 2014/03/17
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Barry OReilly, 2014/03/19
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated),
Stefan <=
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Barry OReilly, 2014/03/19
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Stefan, 2014/03/19
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Barry OReilly, 2014/03/23
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Stefan, 2014/03/24
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Barry OReilly, 2014/03/24
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Stefan, 2014/03/24
- bug#16818: Acknowledgement (Undo in region after markers in undo history relocated), Barry OReilly, 2014/03/24