From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Gutov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Bug #25608 and the comment-cache branch Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 00:08:41 +0200 Message-ID: <0a40d539-b7bc-2655-5429-6280022106ee@yandex.ru> References: <20170202202418.GA2505@acm> <83lgtouxpf.fsf@gnu.org> <20170202215154.GB2505@acm> <83h94bvhzw.fsf@gnu.org> <20170203172952.GC2250@acm> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1486159743 27956 195.159.176.226 (3 Feb 2017 22:09:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 22:09:03 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.0 Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie , Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 03 23:08:59 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cZm2N-00079f-Jv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 23:08:59 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37093 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cZm2S-0003ow-Sv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 17:09:04 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40937) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cZm2G-0003ks-Uc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 17:08:53 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cZm29-0000no-Fh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 17:08:48 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-wm0-x244.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::244]:34924) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cZm29-0000nM-9B; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 17:08:45 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-wm0-x244.google.com with SMTP id u63so7345453wmu.2; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 14:08:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=I/UyNCngIp0Sz4wfmlKEsBlghxWavysAJAc40iKa0BA=; b=U3bRROjOsnj9SSl9iXIrVMmrg7MVVTiD0m/+QdpXXNKnmupsL7ZOsIBlaeIrjY9EFG 0lM2j4FlycczBdHgGDuZon9329KWTee1ypRQMqn+zvXkX+OtrSkxFiS6kPvwDGNMTXK8 5F8HW4Ak8cvzKbHh0w3lcCuESPq3TuGFktF+UXQyjeHatxlziCSb0UUtQZ/HCf43rPHj CIuJAoELtrJMvv423TGjc39NCTqpqsKtf36wToFabX42gVkxkvmS91xZkha4DLnhf9AV I8qj5DSMQsL9WsQgfmbySClLiJDkZLxHYCN9XwUTERgKEshtS7QajQC40j015yL8379B 1uXg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=I/UyNCngIp0Sz4wfmlKEsBlghxWavysAJAc40iKa0BA=; b=DcysrJABxl7i4yKFhbeXAXOuSyUFDKOQmEzFujcFOoB4N7kYFyt9+8/4+NfghgegO4 9TLN7jNrLe3O1h7tE+8KdkuRzdrky4EtKp3xtiSajneyMb4UY8GFJlqQrMw46/8cLkQU WOzEa7AqLsSSsWNzS3Cugtl0L7qmoPmucGfQKV6uDlEZ0Gz3xCGQ33+Wl21V9C9K3qNb 8/6U9UAESNKwRKT5xFgyjMRgfLdtN2t9dixHdOF4+Y4eIyMwdd7fRPjr6JOyePsBRe62 Xy/3vgqrOto3hbwkRrKOuh/z9Gf9A33NodwAaeupVPo8HBQHVaz7sZi5RK5+0V62BSWI y4OA== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLbEQ7hYWM7/7Mds/NkW0A3sGS9kqbsUA+xQ4fQ+vSL7TbDCiGKURgqyEXkUXQhGg== X-Received: by 10.223.176.175 with SMTP id i44mr14317868wra.3.1486159724240; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 14:08:44 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.3] ([185.105.173.41]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id 40sm47398384wry.22.2017.02.03.14.08.42 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 03 Feb 2017 14:08:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20170203172952.GC2250@acm> Content-Language: en-US X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c09::244 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:211944 Archived-At: On 03.02.2017 19:29, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > The objectors do not seem to want compromise - they want comment-cache > to be wholly abandoned. It's silly to seek a compromise between implementations. Rather, we should discuss hard requirements (with some test cases). And then we should seek the simplest solution that satisfies all of our requirements. > They object to it for reasons I don't > understand, despite the fact that it elegantly solves a long standing > problem that continues to cause pain on a frequent basis. Elegance is in the eye of the beholder. It certainly doesn't seem elegant to me, design-wise. > If you (or anybody else) could summarize what these objections are, I'd > be very grateful. "It introduces a second source of truth" seems like a concise summary. At best, it'll use more memory than it has to. At worst, we risk divergence in the information contained in those sources (so functions depending on one or the other will behave in incompatible fashion). That means nasty bugs that aren't easy to track down. > Note that there has been NO constructive criticism of comment-cache. That's insulting, Alan. > Nobody is pointing out problems it causes or might cause. And that's false.