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

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:16:38 +0000
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> From: Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden>
> 
> > And the part about "balanced pairs" is simply false, if "balanced" is
> > to be interpreted in its everyday's meaning.
> 
> I don't understand what you mean.  By balanced, I essentially mean that
> (i) b-c-f and a-c-f alternate,
> (ii) b-c-f's beg is the same as a-c-f's beg,
> (iii) b-c-f's (- end beg) is equal to a-c-f's old-len.

That's just it: the above happens only in "simple" changes, like a
simple deletion or insertion.  Any more complex changes don't do it
"balanced" according to your definition.

Look, do we have to reiterate this endless discussion that leads
nowhere?  I wasted all my free time today reading and replying to
messages about this, something that I thought was closed long ago.
Important patches that were ready to be applied and pushed are still
waiting because I didn't have time for them.

I suggest that we leave it alone -- again.

Thanks.