From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Eli Zaretskii" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: C-n is very slow in Font-Lock mode Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 01:43:52 +0300 Message-ID: <01c54ab1$Blat.v2.4$91328080@zahav.net.il> References: <01c54841$Blat.v2.4$8f503680@zahav.net.il> <01c54917$Blat.v2.4$b975aea0@zahav.net.il> <01c54a8a$Blat.v2.4$9d6aeda0@zahav.net.il> <85mzrlgqws.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1114555748 18052 80.91.229.2 (26 Apr 2005 22:49:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:49:08 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 27 00:49:05 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DQYqg-0005qD-QR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Apr 2005 00:48:11 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DQYwU-00050S-O4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 18:54:10 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DQYwG-000501-QY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 18:53:56 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DQYwE-0004zL-NO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 18:53:56 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DQYwE-0003Is-I3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 18:53:54 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.114.186.66] (helo=romy.inter.net.il) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DQYrv-00072R-BC; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 18:49:27 -0400 Original-Received: from zaretski (IGLD-80-230-41-251.inter.net.il [80.230.41.251]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.6-GR) with ESMTP id BBT03130 (AUTH halo1); Wed, 27 Apr 2005 01:45:28 +0300 (IDT) Original-To: David Kastrup X-Mailer: emacs 22.0.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 2.4 In-reply-to: <85mzrlgqws.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> (message from David Kastrup on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:38:11 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:36428 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:36428 > Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: David Kastrup > Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:38:11 +0200 > > > I think jit-lock-defer-time _is_ the way to avoid the slowness if > > you are willing to see the text unfontified for a fraction of a > > second. > > I think that a separate value of 0 where is one not willing to see > text unfontified, but willing to have motion calculated with a still > unfontified text, would make perfect sense. jit-lock-defer-time works by setting up an idle timer. Will run-with-idle-timer work if you give it a zero time-out? And fontification of the visible portion will take time during which one still sees unfontified text, anyway.