[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: flyspell bug
From: |
Richard M. Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: flyspell bug |
Date: |
Mon, 03 Oct 2005 15:31:24 -0400 |
Rather I would do it in the top-level command loop, e.g.
by saving the current window/buffer/frame before running
the pre-command hook and compare them to the value after
running the post-command-hook -- and run the appropriate
hooks at that time.
That way, e.g. set-buffer on its own won't run any unknown Lisp code.
I think it would be extremely confusing if switching windows to look
around in another buffer were likely to run some Lisp code.
It would make debugging very painful, if you could not look at buffers
without changing them.
- flyspell bug, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/10/02
- Re: flyspell bug, Slawomir Nowaczyk, 2005/10/02
- Re: flyspell bug, Kim F. Storm, 2005/10/02
- Re: flyspell bug, Slawomir Nowaczyk, 2005/10/02
- Re: flyspell bug, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/10/03
- Re: flyspell bug, Kim F. Storm, 2005/10/03
- Re: flyspell bug,
Richard M. Stallman <=
- Re: flyspell bug, Kim F. Storm, 2005/10/04
- Re: flyspell bug, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/10/04
- Re: flyspell bug, David Kastrup, 2005/10/05
- Re: flyspell bug, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/10/03
- Re: flyspell bug, Slawomir Nowaczyk, 2005/10/05
- Re: flyspell bug, Slawomir Nowaczyk, 2005/10/05
- Re: flyspell bug, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/10/10
- Re: flyspell bug, Slawomir Nowaczyk, 2005/10/12
- Re: flyspell bug, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/10/13
- Re: flyspell bug, Slawomir Nowaczyk, 2005/10/13