Luc Teirlinck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bill Wohler wrote: > > By the way, the only two desktop-related items in my .emacs are turning > on desktop-save-mode (which is probably obvious ;-) and this: > > (run-at-time 60 300 'desktop-save "~") ;it would be better to catch HUP > and > ;call desktop-save before exiting > > The latter was your problem. From `(elisp)Timers': > > It is usually a bad idea for timer functions to alter buffer > contents. When they do, they usually should call `undo-boundary' both > before and after changing the buffer, to separate the timer's changes > from user commands' changes and prevent a single undo entry from > growing to be quite large. > > So it is no surprise that you accumulated such a large single undo entry.
Thanks for the information. Since I don't understand the mechanics of desktop, I have a couple of questions about that. First, I thought desktop-save just saves the buffer to a file. Is it really altering the the *desktop* buffer? Oh, running desktop-save a couple of times shows that it at least updates the Created header field. OK, desktop-save must gather buffer information, write it to *desktop*, and *then* save it to a file. Right? Second, I also don't understand the mechanics of undo very well. I was under the impression that undo-boundary only grouped a set of changes into a single undo entry. As I sit here writing, only a limited amount of changes are saved and at some point the oldest undo information will be discarded. How is the timer different? Interesting, as I typed this, the timer had run a couple of times (I was thinking and trying to understand desktop and undo). I re-ran `C-h v buffer-undo-list' a few times too. It just produced buffers with only 35 kB, not 68 kB. > Right now my desktop buffer is 32 kB; > > So that is approximately 32 kB every five minutes. After eight hours, > you exceed 3M. > > Anyway, my patch, or disabling undo, completely gets rid of this problem. So, which one should I apply? Before I fix my timer ;-). If the *desktop* buffer is ephemeral and recreated when desktop-save is run, it seems that disabling undo is the proper course of action. Otherwise, preserving undo while protecting against abuse would be wise. What do you think? -- Bill Wohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.newt.com/wohler/ GnuPG ID:610BD9AD Maintainer of comp.mail.mh FAQ and MH-E. Vote Libertarian! If you're passed on the right, you're in the wrong lane. _______________________________________________ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
