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

[Daniel Colascione]

On 08/28/2016 08:01 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > Besides, you haven't fixed the docstring, which still suggests that b-c-f is
> > called before every change. (And a "change" must be anything that results in
> > a-c-f being called.)
>
> It doesn't just suggest it, it says so, and rightly so.

So will insdel.c or the docstring change?

FWIW, there *is* a certain elegance to the idea of the "forget 
everything after the first bit that changed" model of change tracking, 
but as long as b-c-f exists, it might as well work consistently.