On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 20:00:55 -0500, Austin Clements wrote:
> There's no reason to record undo information for read-only,
> programmatically-constructed buffers. The undo list just chews up
> memory keeping track of our calls to insert.
Pushed.
d
On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 20:00:55 -0500, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote:
There's no reason to record undo information for read-only,
programmatically-constructed buffers. The undo list just chews up
memory keeping track of our calls to insert.
Pushed.
d
On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 20:00:55 -0500, Austin Clements wrote:
> There's no reason to record undo information for read-only,
> programmatically-constructed buffers. The undo list just chews up
> memory keeping track of our calls to insert.
Makes sense and looks good!
Regards,
Dmitry
> ---
>
There's no reason to record undo information for read-only,
programmatically-constructed buffers. The undo list just chews up
memory keeping track of our calls to insert.
---
emacs/notmuch-show.el |2 ++
emacs/notmuch.el |2 ++
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff
There's no reason to record undo information for read-only,
programmatically-constructed buffers. The undo list just chews up
memory keeping track of our calls to insert.
---
emacs/notmuch-show.el |2 ++
emacs/notmuch.el |2 ++
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff
On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 20:00:55 -0500, Austin Clements amdra...@mit.edu wrote:
There's no reason to record undo information for read-only,
programmatically-constructed buffers. The undo list just chews up
memory keeping track of our calls to insert.
Makes sense and looks good!
Regards,
Dmitry
