Re: Experimental implementation of extent modification hooks
Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof(a)math.ethz.ch> writes:
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> writes:
> This patch is *not* meant for application to any XEmacs.
So I didn't and just looked at the patch :-) These are just some
stupid remarks. I cannot say anything other about the implementation
other than it looks surprisingly simple.
> * insdel.c (signal_before_change): Don't check for Armageddon.
Why? Or is Armageddon gone totally now?
Because most of Armageddon checks were wrong. I see no reason why
XEmacs should be completely hosed (ignoring hooks is what I call
hosed) when exiting.
As an example: there used to be code in save_excursion_save() that
simply ignored the whole save-excursion if preparing_for_armageddon.
If that's not bogus, I don't know what is.
> + /* #### It's a shame that we can't use any of the
existing run_hook*
> + functions here. This is so because all of them work with
> + symbols, to be able to retrieve default values of local hooks.
> + <sigh> */
Shouldn't that be changed then?
The change is non-trivial. If you wish to write it, go ahead!
--
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
HOW YOU CAN TELL THAT IT'S GOING TO BE A ROTTEN DAY:
#15 Your pet rock snaps at you.