> That is more the right idea, for the part that reads from
> the buffer. But it is not correct to associate this with
> killing. Think of it as a variant of buffer-substring.
By this, I'm guessing you mean going to a lower level, e.g. calling the
filter functions from inside buffer-substring.
No, buffer-substring should not call them. That's why I said "a
variant of buffer-substring". Some places would call this new
variant, but some would continue to call the existing, ordinary
buffer-substring function.
I suggest implementing the `kill-filter' variable I proposed; then I will
change longlines.el to use it, and we can put longlines.el into Emacs.
That's not right. It only does part of the job. Killing is not the
only feature that needs to do this processing.
Anyway, what about my other suggestion? The suggestion to make
longlines.el use after-change-functions to discover all new text inserted
in the buffer, and do longlines processing on that text?
_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
