On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 20:53:20 +0200, Elmar Bartel wrote: > > [...] > > ui0.pushbuffer() > > ui1 = ui0.copy(share_buffer=True) > > ... > > ui0.popbuffer() > > # ui1 may outlive and its buffer would be popped implicitly, which might > > # not always be what we want, but that's unavoidable. > What could be done about this: > We record in ui._bufferstates[] (as fourth element) the ui which did > the push and allow/do the pop only when it is done by the same ui. > But this also would not fix all possible calling-sequence-scenrios > and then its debatable whether this effort is worth it.
Another option is to create a shallow-copy of the buffers stack, so the underlying buffer is shared, but the buffers stack itself isn't. newui._buffers = oldui._buffers[:] ... Both oldui and newui can/should popbuffer() and will get the data between oldui.pushbuffer() and self.popbuffer(). newui will remain buffered even after oldui do popbuffer(). This behavior might be expected if oldui/newui aren't parent/child and should work as if the underlying fout were replaced with the buffer. But that wouldn't be always true. So I don't thinks there's the single best way to implement buffer sharing. _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
