From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Problems with syntax-ppss Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 14:46:42 +0000 Message-ID: <20080405144642.GA3095@muc.de> References: <20080404172627.GB4804@muc.de> <47F69A4F.1050405@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1207405855 18973 80.91.229.12 (5 Apr 2008 14:30:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 14:30:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Apr 05 16:31:27 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Ji9QP-0006w0-Fv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 05 Apr 2008 16:31:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ji9Pm-0006l6-FR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 05 Apr 2008 10:30:42 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ji9Ph-0006iC-Uk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Apr 2008 10:30:38 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ji9Ph-0006g1-6l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Apr 2008 10:30:37 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ji9Pg-0006fl-TR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Apr 2008 10:30:36 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1] helo=mail.muc.de) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ji9Pg-0004R7-Qv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Apr 2008 10:30:37 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 44844 invoked by uid 3782); 5 Apr 2008 14:30:33 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p57AF531E.dip.t-dialin.net [87.175.83.30]) by colin2.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Sat, 05 Apr 2008 16:30:30 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 3619 invoked by uid 1000); 5 Apr 2008 14:46:43 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47F69A4F.1050405@gmx.at> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.5 (Fettercairn) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: FreeBSD 4.6-4.9 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:94407 Archived-At: Hi, S and M! On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 11:14:55PM +0200, martin rudalics wrote: > >I strongly recommend to always call syntax-ppss in a widened buffer. > > ... and with match-data saved. Er, your replies don't exactly radiate an aura of confidence about syntax-ppss. ;-( I think you (Stefan) 're saying that the function isn't 100% defined for a narrowed buffer. Will calling s-ppss on a narrowed buffer corrupt the cache at all, for example? As a matter of interest, are there any benchmark figures for s-ppss? Like, how many characters do you have to scan more than, before s-ppss (an interpreted lisp function) starts being faster than (parse-partial-sexp 1 (point)) (a fast function written in C)? -- Alan.