Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2) [PATCH]

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 19:54:59 +0000
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> From: Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden>
> 
> Hello, Eli.
> 
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 10:04:45PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 18:42:23 +0000
> > > Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> > > From: Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden>
> 
> > > > So, if worse comes to worst, you could trigger such a complete scan
> > > > after revert-buffer, e.g. in a specialized revert-buffer-function.
> 
> > > Why would that be bad?
> 
> > Not bad, just potentially expensive for large buffers.  But if that's
> > "good enough", I don't really mind.
> 
> > However, the patch you show below doesn't implement this, does it?
> 
> No, but the following does.  It looks kind of simple, given the problems
> we've been through.  Maybe this one is the solution:

LGTM, thanks.  Feel free to install, and close this issue.