Re: [CEDET-devel] Is Semantic able to work with indirectbuffers?-some more findings and a solution idea

[<kla...@ca...>]

See my other posting - i'm not sure if we are reliant on this hook-stuff to make semantic useable with indirect buffers...
KLaus 

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Lennart Borgman [mailto:len...@gm...] 
Gesendet: Freitag, 17. April 2009 11:31
An: Eric M. Ludlam
Cc: Berndl, Klaus; ced...@li...
Betreff: Re: Re[1]: [CEDET-devel] Is Semantic able to work with indirectbuffers?-some more findings and a solution idea

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Lennart Borgman <len...@gm...> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 5:41 AM, Eric M. Ludlam <er...@si...> wrote:
>>>>> Lennart Borgman <len...@gm...> seems to think that:
>>>On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Eric M. Ludlam <er...@si...> wrote:
>>>> Propagating change-hook calling as a part of Emacs could be a bit 
>>>> hazardous.  Many change hooks might be redisplaying interactive 
>>>> things, and assume that they are called in the current buffer the 
>>>> focus is in.  That could get a bit wacky.
>>>
>>>Aren't the change hooks run in the indirect buffers too?
>>
>> Yes, but only when the indirect buffer is the current buffer.  Or so 
>> it seems the way I'm using it.  An edit in one buffer does not 
>> trigger my hooks in the other buffers to run.
>
> Hm, that is a bit problematic and perhaps a bug. Are we taking about 
> after-change-hook etc?

Eh, after-change-functions is the hook name.