Re: when nothing happens, buffer still marked as modified

[Amin Bandali]

On 2018-12-05 12:58 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> I mean why not follow M-q's example?  It marks the buffer modified
> even if re-filling the text arrived at the same text as before the
> command.

I’d noticed that in the past and found it strange.  Are there any
strong reasons for keeping the current behaviour vs. only marking
the buffer as modified when re-filling actually results in a
change?  Marking the buffer as modified when there was no visual
change seems like a ‘leaky abstraction’.

Though thinking about the wording (“modified”) more precisely, I
suppose the behaviour does technically make sense, but it still
feels somewhat strange / counter-intuitive.  I think it would be
nice to have a “difference” indicator for when an action results
in an actual difference compared to before.

Just my 2¢.