> 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?
I am already making longlines.el use post-command-hook to process text yanked *into* the longlines buffer. But I need a separate mechanism to process text yanked *out of* the buffer, and neither post-command-hook nor after-change-functions are suitable for this. By the time the hook is called, the text has already been put into the kill ring and clipboard. > 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. In that case, I don't think our ideas are so different. I'll alter my patch to implement the `kill-filters' variable, and make the appropriate functions use it before calling buffer-substring. So far, these functions are `kill-region', `copy-region-as-kill', and `copy-to-register'; are there others? _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
