unofficial mirror of bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org 
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
* Re: emacs' TAB completions slower than bash's?
       [not found]   ` <m2bsdjv2s6.fsf@jidanni.org>
@ 2002-03-21  6:48     ` Eli Zaretskii
  2002-03-21 18:09       ` Dan Jacobson
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2002-03-21  6:48 UTC (permalink / raw)



On 20 Mar 2002, Dan Jacobson wrote:

> OK, load up emacs with 20 different buffers, do C-x b TAB
> The first time one does this, it seems mighty slow.  If one does it
> again, it is real fast.  Processor: P166.
> 
> Ok, now in bash
> $ bla bla /dev/ttySR<TAB>
> Display all 512 possibilities? (y or n) y

Please compare the Bash completion with "C-x C-f TAB", not "C-x b TAB".  
The latter doesn't work on files, but on buffers, so you are comparing 
apples with oranges.

_______________________________________________
Bug-gnu-emacs mailing list
Bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnu-emacs


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: emacs' TAB completions slower than bash's?
  2002-03-21  6:48     ` emacs' TAB completions slower than bash's? Eli Zaretskii
@ 2002-03-21 18:09       ` Dan Jacobson
  2002-03-28  8:38         ` Dan Jacobson
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Dan Jacobson @ 2002-03-21 18:09 UTC (permalink / raw)


>> OK, load up emacs with 20 different buffers, do C-x b TAB
>> The first time one does this, it seems mighty slow.  If one does it
>> again, it is real fast.  Processor: P166.
>> 
>> Ok, now in bash
>> $ bla bla /dev/ttySR<TAB>
>> Display all 512 possibilities? (y or n) y

Eli> Please compare the Bash completion with "C-x C-f TAB", not "C-x b TAB".  
Eli> The latter doesn't work on files, but on buffers, so you are comparing 
Eli> apples with oranges.

I saying that emacs takes much longer to show me a list of 20 things than
bash does for 512 things.  I did not inquire about where those things
come from or are stored.  It would seem that asking emacs about things
in its memory [buffer names] should be faster than having to get
information [file names] from the disk.   However, it seems the
opposite is true.
-- 
http://www.geocities.com/jidanni/ Taiwan(04)25854780

_______________________________________________
Bug-gnu-emacs mailing list
Bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnu-emacs


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: emacs' TAB completions slower than bash's?
  2002-03-21 18:09       ` Dan Jacobson
@ 2002-03-28  8:38         ` Dan Jacobson
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Dan Jacobson @ 2002-03-28  8:38 UTC (permalink / raw)


By the way, I now have a faster computer, so I can no longer see the
areas that need to be or could be optimized in emacs anymore, Sorry.

1005547 kHz AMD Duron processor.  Memory: 257004k
-- 
http://www.geocities.com/jidanni/ Taiwan(04)25854780

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2002-03-28  8:38 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
     [not found] <m24rjgclye.fsf@jidanni.org>
     [not found] ` <7443-Sun17Mar2002063446+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
     [not found]   ` <m2bsdjv2s6.fsf@jidanni.org>
2002-03-21  6:48     ` emacs' TAB completions slower than bash's? Eli Zaretskii
2002-03-21 18:09       ` Dan Jacobson
2002-03-28  8:38         ` Dan Jacobson

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).