From xemacs-m  Thu Aug 14 08:58:55 1997
Received: from wfdutilgw.ml.com (wfdutilf01.ml.com [206.3.74.31])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA14214
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 08:58:54 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ml1.ml.com ([199.201.57.130])
	by wfdutilgw.ml.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/MLgw-3.03) with ESMTP id JAA02855;
	Thu, 14 Aug 1997 09:53:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from commpost.ml.com (commpost.ml.com [146.125.4.24])
	by ml1.ml.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/MLml4-2.07) with SMTP id JAA23028;
	Thu, 14 Aug 1997 09:58:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from spssunp.spspme.ml.com (spssunp.spspme.ml.com [192.168.111.13]) by commpost.ml.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA25022; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 10:03:24 -0400
Received: by spssunp.spspme.ml.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-4.1)
	id JAA19778; Thu, 14 Aug 1997 09:58:18 -0400
To: Simon Marshall <simon@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Cc: XEmacs Beta List <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] lazy-lock
References: <199708140833.EAA28831@ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
X-Face: D>:hrrB{l6#\wU;)0R:OHSTA@ayd.Oq?s@Rrc;[+z0m+<-U"$G-J6L)F2QY`qK~uPu!s1(6{\#uy!Ag/D)?'L[}xErXvxoPn8T_hKi{M]/(`BF{e}X7;hby`p\.E$rJ}Aff#BT,rdDIw\y
X-Y-Zippy: Awright, which one of you hid my PENIS ENVY?
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Colin Rafferty <craffert@ml.com>
Date: 14 Aug 1997 09:58:17 -0400
In-Reply-To: Simon Marshall's message of "Thu, 14 Aug 1997 04:33:15 -0400"
Message-ID: <ocriux8lvd2.fsf@ml.com>
Lines: 21
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.64/XEmacs 20.3(beta17) - "Bucharest"

Simon Marshall writes:

> The reason for my suspicion is that if `lazy-lock-hide-invisible' is
> nil, lazy-lock.el does a `sit-for' with NODISP nil before using
> `window-end' (assuming that you're not using the hacked up version of
> lazy-lock.el---and if you are you're doomed anyway).  It seems strange
> that `window-end' should return an incorrect value *after* a
> redisplay.

I am doomed.  While XEmacs 20.2 has the normal version of 1.16, XEmacs
20.3 has a hacked up version of 1.14.

The real issue is that we have the Ben Wing hacked up version.
Therefore Simon, you can ignore the patch, because it is irrelevant in
the post-command-hook world in which you are able to live.

The XEmacs hacked up version uses `pre-idle-hook', and therefore, the
patch is still correct for it.

-- 
Colin

