>>>> "Bryan" == Bryan M Kramer
<kramer(a)techne.ca> writes:
Bryan> To all the follow ups, it is NOT due to the fact that I
Bryan> have more than one frame open on each buffer.
1. Ie, you're sure you have one-to-one relationship between buffers
and frames. I'm glad frames seem irrelevant; they should be.
2. Does JDE do things like pop up a window to show you the definition
or declaration of function called at point? Note that the
window-to-buffer relationship is independent of the number of
frames; you can have the same buffer in multiple windows in one
frame.
If it is 2, then probably JDE (or whatever) is leaving point in the
viewer window. This would also account for difficulty in
replication. The bug would only manifest when the pop-up displayed
the same buffer (which would not happen if the declaration were in a
different file).
So a sequence like this would generate the problem:
1. A call of a function needs to use a variant class as argument.
2. Pop up the declaration, change the declaration to a parent class.
Sub-task done.
3. [Leave point at declaration.] Go read mail. Close a bunch of
frames, they're a pain.
4. C-x 5 b your-buffer. Expect to be at the call, which is what
you're working on (the pop-up is "transient", right?), but find
yourself at the declaration (grrr).
Could it be something like that?
I think that probably JDE should use an indirect buffer here, if the
feature is available in the version of XEmacs you're using. The idea
of an indirect buffer is that it's a different buffer with the same
contents. Thus it has its own point, but changes in the contents are
the same for both buffers.
--
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences
http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
ask what your business can "do for" free software.