From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stefan Monnier" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: backward-up-list Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:56:38 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <200207181856.g6IIuc012530@rum.cs.yale.edu> References: <3D3574F6.7030405@isogmbh.de> <200207181455.g6IEtMD25024@aztec.santafe.edu> <87d6tkvrhh.fsf@enberg.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1027018644 29072 127.0.0.1 (18 Jul 2002 18:57:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 18:57:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, stl@isogmbh.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17VGSp-0007Yn-00 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 20:57:23 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17VGeq-00054t-00 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 21:09:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17VGSp-0003Ij-00; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:57:23 -0400 Original-Received: from rum.cs.yale.edu ([128.36.229.169]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17VGS8-0003HI-00; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:56:40 -0400 Original-Received: (from monnier@localhost) by rum.cs.yale.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g6IIuc012530; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:56:38 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 Original-To: Henrik Enberg Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:5873 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:5873 > I have been using this little function built atop Stefans syntax > package for turning on flyspell mode in comment and strings. It > doesn't seem to cause any noticable slowdown. BTW, if you use font-lock, it's probably a bit more efficient to use flyspell-prog-mode (which just relies on font-lock's faces, which might not always be quite the same info as the output of syntax-ppss, but I'm not sure which is worse/better). Stefan