GNU bug report logs - #4597
Antwort: Re: bug#4587: 23.1; sort-lines and sort-fields always set buffer modified

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 4597 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 4597 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com (full text, mbox):

From: Roland.Meier <at> continental-corporation.com
To: monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
Cc: 4587 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Antwort: Re: bug#4587: 23.1; sort-lines and sort-fields always set buffer
 modified
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:00:56 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

> Yes, that's generally desirable.  But in the above cases, given the way
> the code currently works, it's fairly inconvenient to do (the code does
> modify the buffer, it just so happens that the end text is the same as
> the original text), so it doesn't seem worth the trouble.

Wouldn't it be possible in case of an unmodified buffer to copy the 
content of the region at the beginning to a temporary buffer, compare it 
to the result afterwards, and if they match to restore the unmodified 
status?

I sometimes need to check a list (which isn't small enough to be checked 
at a glance) after editing it if it is still sorted.
Now I write he region before and after sorting it to separate files and 
compare them, but I wonder if a powerful tool like emacs must keep such an 
obvious annoyance like this...

Thanks!
-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Roland Meier
     \|||/ 
     (o o) 
==ooO==U==Ooo== 

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #12 received at 4597 <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com (full text, mbox):

From: Magnus Henoch <mange <at> freemail.hu>
To: Roland.Meier <at> continental-corporation.com
Cc: 4597 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#4597: Antwort: Re: bug#4587: 23.1; sort-lines and sort-fields always set buffer modified
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:56:57 +0100

Roland.Meier <at> continental-corporation.com writes:

> I sometimes need to check a list (which isn't small enough to be checked 
> at a glance) after editing it if it is still sorted.

Maybe M-x diff-buffer-with-file could do that for you?

HTH,
Magnus

Message #17 received at 4597 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Roland.Meier <at> continental-corporation.com
Cc: 4587 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, rm369 <at> arcor.de, 4597 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#4597: Antwort: Re: bug#4587: 23.1; sort-lines and
 sort-fields always set buffer modified
Date: Tue, 03 May 2022 21:24:09 +0200

Roland.Meier <at> continental-corporation.com writes:

> M-x sort-lines and M-x sort-fields always set the buffer modified 
> status ("-" -> "*" in column 5 of the status line), even if the region 
> was sorted and the command did not modify anything. 
> An unmodified buffer should stay unmodified if nothing was changed. 

(I'm going through old bug reports that unfortunately weren't resolved
at the time.)

I've now fixed this in Emacs 29.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #22 received at 4597 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 4587 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Roland.Meier <at> continental-corporation.com,
 4597 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, rm369 <at> arcor.de
Subject: Re: bug#4597: Antwort: Re: bug#4587: 23.1;
 sort-lines and sort-fields always set buffer modified
Date: Wed, 04 May 2022 10:21:08 +0300

> Resent-From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
> Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
> Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
> Resent-Sender: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org
> Cc: 4587 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, rm369 <at> arcor.de, 4597 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
> Date: Tue, 03 May 2022 21:24:09 +0200
> 
> Roland.Meier <at> continental-corporation.com writes:
> 
> > M-x sort-lines and M-x sort-fields always set the buffer modified 
> > status ("-" -> "*" in column 5 of the status line), even if the region 
> > was sorted and the command did not modify anything. 
> > An unmodified buffer should stay unmodified if nothing was changed. 
> 
> (I'm going through old bug reports that unfortunately weren't resolved
> at the time.)
> 
> I've now fixed this in Emacs 29.

This uses buffer-hash, which is only sensitive to changes in the byte
sequences of the buffer text.  AFAIU, it doesn't know about other
possible changes we perceive as "buffer changes", like changes in
faces, overlays, buffer-file-coding-system, etc.  Shouldn't this be
prominently documented in the macro's doc string?

Message #25 received at 4597 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 4587 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Roland.Meier <at> continental-corporation.com,
 4597 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, rm369 <at> arcor.de
Subject: Re: bug#4597: Antwort: Re: bug#4587: 23.1; sort-lines and
 sort-fields always set buffer modified
Date: Wed, 04 May 2022 09:53:24 +0200

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

> This uses buffer-hash, which is only sensitive to changes in the byte
> sequences of the buffer text.  AFAIU, it doesn't know about other
> possible changes we perceive as "buffer changes", like changes in
> faces, overlays, buffer-file-coding-system, etc.  Shouldn't this be
> prominently documented in the macro's doc string?

(Adding overlays doesn't change modification status.)

If you think that needs to be spelled out, please go ahead, but it
doesn't seem necessary to me.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.