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

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hello, Daniel.

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:46:44AM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> On 08/30/2016 10:42 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> >> From: Daniel Colascione <address@hidden>
> >> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 10:27:45 -0700

> >> +The region given to each of these functions is a conservative
> >> +approximation of the region about to changed.  After running the
> >> +before-change-functions, Emacs will make zero or more fine-grained
> >> +buffer changes and run after-change-functions for each.  Do not expect
> >> +before-change-functions and after-change-functions to be called in
> >> +balanced pairs.

> > The last sentence here is repeated afterwards, for no good reason.
> > (Also, the markup is missing, but that's just an aside.)

> I figured it was a good idea to highlight this fact directly in the 
> variable documentation blob. I can add a "see below" link.

Why are you advocating this?  It is not true.  You _can_ expect b-c-f and
a-c-f to be balanced in all but, perhaps, one occurrence per million.  It
happens so seldom that in practice, one can assume that b-c-f and a-c-f
match completely[*].  You are describing the exception as though it were the
typical case.

[*] provided the exceptions are handled somehow.

[ .... ]

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).