Re: evil hack in buffer.c, and need for internal docs onwidgetcode
this belongs on xemacs-beta.
Andy Piper wrote:
At 01:16 AM 8/8/00 -0700, Ben Wing wrote:
>changing the buffer order is simply an internal state change. the only reason
>it affects redisplay is because of the fact that you choose to make the tab
>widget order dependent on the buffer order. redisplay should be triggered
>*only* as a result of the tab widget instantiator changing. if the tab
>widgets
>are off, or implemented in a different fashion, it no longer makes any
>sense to
>force a frame redisplay just because of the buffer order change. that's why
>your addition doesn't belong.
Ok. But this still does not fit with your redisplay change - i.e. if you
put anything else on that hook you may get screwed.
for example?
Nevertheless I will
take it out.
> > >calling record-buffer has nothing inherently to do with redisplay. by
> adding
It does when you add a redisplay hook that is based on changes to the
buffer-alist.
this makes no sense. what if the tabs displayed the last few files opened? do
we have to modify find-file to trigger redisplay?
> > >this special kludge for the tab widgets, you are just papering over
> > >another bug
> > >elsewhere, which is that the changes to the tab widgets aren't
properly
> > >getting
> > >noticed
There was no bug, as I say it was an ideological change.
there was and is a bug. changing the contents of the gutter isn't causing the
gutter to get redisplayed. redisplay should NOT be triggered by record-buffer.
it should be triggered only when the code in gutter-items changes the gutter.
>btw you commented out my defer-window-pos code; why?
Because I wasn't sure whether this was obscuring other display-related
problems. IMHO it shouldn't be necessary and is a window-system specific
change. As you can see it left the code in and will re-enable it by default
when things have settled down.
>please try to document what's currently there and not wait any longer. if you
>could do so, i could help you fix the various widget bugs. as it is, the code
>is impenetrable to me.
Given time, crashes take priority. But please give me some indication that
you are not simply going to rewrite things yet again.
>btw you never responded to my message outlining changes i think necessary for
>dialog boxes to work. what do you think of it?
Give me a chance, I had 424 mail messages after 3 days holiday and only a
1.25 hr train journey in which to answer them all.
andy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Andy Piper
Principal Consultant, BEA Systems Ltd
--
Ben
In order to save my hands, I am cutting back on my mail. I also write
as succinctly as possible -- please don't be offended. If you send me
mail, you _will_ get a response, but please be patient, especially for
XEmacs-related mail. If you need an immediate response and it is not
apparent in your message, please say so. Thanks for your understanding.
See also http://www.666.com/ben/chronic-pain/