Re: flyspell bug

[Kim F. Storm]

"Richard M. Stallman" <address@hidden> writes:

>     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.

How would you notice if flyspell did some "behind the scenes" 
dictionary setup ?

It would be more confusing if switching to another buffer did
not do that ... as I understand the current problem was about?

> It would make debugging very painful, if you could not look at buffers
> without changing them.

Don't load modes that use those hooks then...

-- 
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk