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

[Phillip Lord]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

>> 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.
>
> I think "balanced + a guarantee that a-c-f covers a subset of b-c-f" is
> sufficient, since you can then trivially extend a-c-f's subset to the
> corresponding "identical" locations if you need it.
>
> AFAIK we do have the "a-c-f covers a subset of b-c-f" property,
> right now (modulo bugs, of course).

To my mind, it's not enough. Even if a-c-f could signal the minimal
change AND the positions reported by b-c-f that would work for me.

Phil