From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#56393: Actually fix the long lines display bug Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 15:07:05 +0300 Message-ID: <83zgh4kmxi.fsf@gnu.org> References: <38c1a31040d2d2bc47ae@heytings.org> <83v8rvpxx7.fsf@gnu.org> <209e6aa436f84e1f729a@heytings.org> <83sfmzpw4e.fsf@gnu.org> <83h73epq7v.fsf@gnu.org> <83cze2pmtk.fsf@gnu.org> <838roqpkjs.fsf@gnu.org> <831quipdt2.fsf@gnu.org> <83r12intar.fsf@gnu.org> <83lespomnu.fsf@gnu.org> <83fsixnwh3.fsf@gnu.org> <834jzdnsxw.fsf@gnu.org> <83y1wpmciw.fsf@gnu.org> <83wnc9mbg4.fsf@gnu.org> <83o7xlm64k.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="2971"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: gerd.moellmann@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, 56393@debbugs.gnu.org To: Gregory Heytings Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Jul 20 14:08:10 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oE8Us-0000bS-Ew for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 14:08:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36162 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oE8Ur-0005kW-Dr for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 08:08:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43476) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oE8Uk-0005kG-Q1 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 08:08:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:58329) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oE8Uk-0001dG-DY for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 08:08:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oE8Uk-00078W-5t for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 08:08:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 12:08:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 56393 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 56393-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B56393.165831884627376 (code B ref 56393); Wed, 20 Jul 2022 12:08:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 56393) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Jul 2022 12:07:26 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56083 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oE8UA-00077U-7E for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 08:07:26 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:58358) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oE8U7-00077H-Su for 56393@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 08:07:24 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:57298) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oE8U2-0001SJ-Gy; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 08:07:18 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=gHLAcx2QuoXO3IGLBHp6eFaRSi6jxgDGgiblfTVwioA=; b=AkIcaqk7nuPH WnOJE1geKE36LRgrKyNevShrHFkWINyntImyXd8lGE+RiYiX5znjeg0dJSEi+n9mZjSnP0RPSmeoo kjh/BLkM2gW8nPDlu88+P0gIBP1Wv4Y440uapoaQTxVeDzmjnbnqzy8SzFcyouHJbcimtbiwjS6pJ Cf7O3ih3Qy2OeBweBRyMs0oi57jPfmveJIdead8JPwqK5xTrLl0qcRSR/YVQPFphQTGFNUBt2ATsc ssYHvvsZ1yUW05vkIYjAhndzNMuN3uVmMYQMWxCkPvIg691vuoTxjc++gqtDeSnVYd44PJJv1NsgQ +LpdpN6U8NTUX8CkSqDwRw==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=2776 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oE8Tz-0002WV-Cr; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 08:07:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Gregory Heytings on Tue, 19 Jul 2022 21:40:36 +0000) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:237497 Archived-At: > Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2022 21:40:36 +0000 > From: Gregory Heytings > cc: gerd.moellmann@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, 56393@debbugs.gnu.org > > > Would it help if the tick were incremented by the number of inserted (or > > deleted or replaced) characters (perhaps limited by some reasonable > > value, like 1000)? That would be an easy change, and I don't think it > > would break anything, since no current code relies on the exact value of > > the tick, and the value you get after some non-trivial operation on a > > buffer is generally unpredictable anyway. Would that make the tick > > usable for this task? > > It would. In fact it is not even necessary to record the exact number of > inserted/deleted/replaced characters. > > > If you agree, I can make such a change (but feel free to do it > > yourself). > > > > I just did it, is this what you had in mind? The tick is incremented > logarithmically. Yes, thanks. Perhaps add a comment inside modiff_incr explaining why we do it logarithmically. Otherwise, LGTM. (Hmm... should we say something about this in NEWS? Not that I expect some code out there depend on the exact increments in MOFIFF...)