Re: Unbalanced change hooks (part 2) [Documentation fix still remaining]

[Daniel Colascione]

On 08/30/2016 08:47 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: address@hidden (Phillip Lord)
> > Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 14:30:13 +0100
> > Cc: Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden>, Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>,
> >         address@hidden
> >
> > I think to really avoid the complexity for mode authors, b-c-f and a-c-f
> > need to not only balance, but also to be consistent. At the moment, they
> > are not that either -- they can signal different locations for a given
> > change.
>
> You are setting the bar impossibly high by expecting that.

To be fair, according to Alan, XEmacs meets this impossibly high bar. 
(And its insdel is considerably simpler.)

In today's world, do we really *need* the optimizations that complicate 
change region tracking? Might these things just be just as unnecessary 
as the old code that used to special-case self-insert-command in the 
event loop?