[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer'
From: |
Uday Reddy |
Subject: |
Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer' |
Date: |
Sat, 12 Mar 2011 15:17:30 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 |
On 3/12/2011 10:42 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
No, it isn't. The likelilood that somebody uses `set-buffer' when he
expects it not to change the current buffer is not exactly large.
Agreed. But that is not the only case where the problems occur. As
explained in my message yesterday, there could be unprotected point
movements deep inside function calls, which are unintentionally caught
by the save-excursion at the outer level. Ideally, those point
movements should be protected where they occur, not by an unrelated an
save-excursion sitting somewhere else.
Frankly, I think the warning message is quite fine. save-excursion is
trying to preserve the point (and mark), but only for the
current-buffer. set-buffer is changing the current-buffer and, so, the
preservation of the point in the current-buffer is useless.
If one wants a completely plain warning message, it could be:
"save-excursion has the effect of save-current-buffer"
It doesn't say very much, but nobody will presumably argue about it.
Cheers,
Uday
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', (continued)
- Message not available
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', Uday Reddy, 2011/03/14
- Message not available
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', Stefan Monnier, 2011/03/14
- Message not available
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', Uday Reddy, 2011/03/12
- RE: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', Drew Adams, 2011/03/13
- Message not available
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', David Kastrup, 2011/03/12
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', Eli Zaretskii, 2011/03/12
- Message not available
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', David Kastrup, 2011/03/12
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', Eli Zaretskii, 2011/03/12
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer',
Uday Reddy <=
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', David Kastrup, 2011/03/12
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', Uday Reddy, 2011/03/12
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', Stefan Monnier, 2011/03/14
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', Andreas Röhler, 2011/03/14
- Message not available
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', Stefan Monnier, 2011/03/15
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', PJ Weisberg, 2011/03/15
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', David Kastrup, 2011/03/15
- RE: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', Drew Adams, 2011/03/15
- Message not available
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', Stefan Monnier, 2011/03/15
- Message not available
- Re: `save-excursion' defeated by `set-buffer', Stefan Monnier, 2011/03/15