Re: [PATCH] EWW - use revert--buffer-function to reload, and allow reload in eww-list-buffer

[Adam Porter]

Hi Seb,

On 10/13/24 20:06, Sebastián Monía wrote:
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> > I didn't yet have time to read your discussion and make up my mind.  I
> > was waiting for you to reach some agreement, but it seems you are
> > still discussing the various aspects?
>
> I was wondering if there was an official project stance on using vtable
> or tabulated-list. Like there's a preference for seq vs cl-lib (where
> both apply) for example.
>
> > Are there any downsides to using vtable?
>
> None that I know of, and as Adam suggested, vtables are sometimes easier
> to handle.
> It doesn't make much of a difference in this case, though, the table is
> pretty simple.
>
> Attached a new patch that used vtable, and also adds the
> (eww-buffer-list) function that Jim mentioned before.
> Once this one is merged (after review & corrections :) etc.) I can take
> the same vtable approach for eww-bookmarks.

Small suggestion: When possible, using BUFFER-LOCAL-VALUE is preferable 
over WITH-CURRENT-BUFFER, as it's significantly faster (in my testing). 
You could do this in `eww--list-buffers-get-data'.

Also, you might want to disable the undo list in the list buffer to save 
memory, since there's no need to undo in that buffer.

Finally, in `eww-buffer-list', you could use `match-buffers' instead of 
a bespoke loop.

Thanks for working on this.

--Adam