Re: crash when using W3
we wouldn't need to inhibit event processing. bill perry would get a lisp
error upon buffer deletion, and would then have to change his code not to
trigger event processing in after-change.
Jan Vroonhof wrote:
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)iskon.hr> writes:
> > ... what happens when the buffer gets killed during the loop?
>
> You lose. I didn't really pay much attention to that case,
> considering it highly extreme and even contrived.
Well lisp is allowed to be evil and extreme unfortunately.
> How do we get in the situation where after-change-functions kill the
> buffer? Can that really be intentional?
In this case it is was not the after-change-functions themselves. It
is the fact that we process events during after change functions. It
is normal to delete buffers in process sentinels.
Maybe we should disallow killing the buffer in an
after-change-function (and enforce this somehow) and inhibit all
event processing?
Jan
--
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/typing.html.