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

[Daniel Colascione]

On 08/28/2016 03:44 PM, 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?
>
> I don't know what you're referring to or how that relates to the quoted text.

Sorry --- let me try adding more context. According to the very long 
thread above, I think these are the things everyone agrees to be true:

1) b-c-f isn't currently balanced with a-c-f in the insdel.c implementation

2) b-c-f isn't currently guaranteed to be called at all before any given 
call to a-c-f (e.g., the C-x C-f case)

2) the documentation suggests that a-c-f and b-c-f are balanced

3) many people, Alan and me included, were under the impression that 
b-c-f and a-c-f were balanced and wrote code accordingly

AIUI, Eli's position is that the current behavior should not change at 
all, because making changes at this level is too risky. The 
documentation should change to reflect #1 and #2. Your position is that 
#2 is a bug, but #1 is not, and the documentation needs to change. My 
position, and Alan's, is that #1 and #2 are both bugs and the current 
documentation is fine.

The status quo is that the documentation misleads developers about what 
Emacs actually does. I don't think it's fair to suggest that both Alan 
and I both just misunderstood the documentation.

So what do you propose doing? Upthread, I explained why I think that 
fixing both #1 and #2 is pretty low-risk.