Re: with-output-to-temp-buffer [Re: reverting CJK input methods]

[David Kastrup]

Kenichi Handa <address@hidden> writes:

> In article <address@hidden>, Luc
> Teirlinck <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > Ken'ichi HANDA wrote:
> >    But I still believe it is better to change erase-buffer
> >    itself (perhaps it should delete all overlays too).  Let's
> >    discuss it after the next release.
> 
> This problem has been there for long (perhaps just after
> read-only text property was introduced) but has never been
> reported.  It was just revealed by my attempt to fix
> describe-char.  That means that we can live without changing
> it.
> 
> In addtion, to make a final decision, we must study how
> erase-buffer is used in various codes, which consumes our
> working time much and results in the delay of the next
> release.  I think the sooner release is more important than
> completely settling on what to do with this problem.

Can anyone think of any reason why erase-buffer should not remove the
current buffer completely?  And no, I don't think that read-only
properties on some entries in a buffer count as a reason:
erase-buffer is basically a buffer-wide operation and should only be
influenced by buffer-wide read-only-ness.

If you want to protect your buffer against erasure, set the whole
buffer to read-only.  Or signal errors in before-change-functions,
without actually doing the change.

That is easy enough to do, and much more reliable.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum