Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu

[martin rudalics]

>     1. Should the value returned by `buffer-chars-modified-tick' always
>     (invariantly) imply the value returned by `buffer-modified-tick'?
>
> I do not understand "imply" in this context.

Sorry.  I was thinking about a function `buffer-chars-modified-p' and
intended to ask the following question:

1. Should the value returned by `buffer-chars-modified-p' always
   (invariantly) imply the value returned by `buffer-modified-p'?

Anyway, it's implied by the following.

>
>                                                                   With
>     other words, suppose we have a thing called CHAR_MODIFF: Would we have
>     to support the invariant
>
>                  MODIFF >= CHAR_MODIFF >= SAVE_MODIFF
>
> Yes, that is the idea.

But now I'm in doubt whether I reasoned correctly.  It would mean that
when I save a buffer and thusly update save_modiff I'd have to update
char_modiff as well to preserve that invariant.  As a consequence,
clients like imenu would conclude that an insertion/deletion occurred
although, in fact, the buffer was only saved.