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: Beyond release Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 20:29:44 +0000 Message-ID: <20160627202944.GE4526@acm.fritz.box> References: <5254d43b-39dd-7ac2-03d7-349e6d710a6b@online.de> <577135CD.1040605@gmail.com> <8a06c531-eac2-cfd5-eab0-6bf197e8c3e0@online.de> <57714BA1.8030506@gmail.com> <7c2ab4b6-4781-e553-53f3-52fca9b647fc@online.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1467059443 32604 80.91.229.3 (27 Jun 2016 20:30:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 20:30:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Andreas =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=F6hler?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 27 22:30:34 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1bHdAw-0003cN-3d for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 22:30:34 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60959 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bHdAv-00084c-EK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:30:33 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52540) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bHdA5-00082c-8H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:29:42 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bHdA2-0003fV-2b for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:29:41 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.muc.de ([193.149.48.3]:26562) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bHdA1-0003fO-Oy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:29:37 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 35007 invoked by uid 3782); 27 Jun 2016 20:29:36 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p548C72E2.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.140.114.226]) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 22:29:35 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 30657 invoked by uid 1000); 27 Jun 2016 20:29:44 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7c2ab4b6-4781-e553-53f3-52fca9b647fc@online.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.12 (Macallan) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: FreeBSD 9.x X-Received-From: 193.149.48.3 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:204834 Archived-At: Hello, Andreas. On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 08:10:25PM +0200, Andreas Röhler wrote: > On 27.06.2016 18:55, Dmitry Gutov wrote: > > On 06/27/2016 07:25 PM, Andreas Röhler wrote: > >>> Until someone presents concrete evidence, this is just FUD. You can > >>> pay it no attention. > >> syntax-propertize-function: > > Quotes from Emacs's source code are not sufficient evidence of your > > claims. They can be. Or they can be very powerful supporting evidence. > Not if you snip a relevant part. Indeed not. > (defun syntax-propertize (pos) > "Ensure that syntax-table properties are set until POS (a buffer point)." > (when (< syntax-propertize--done pos) > (if (null syntax-propertize-function) > (setq syntax-propertize--done (max (point-max) pos)) > ;; (message "Needs to syntax-propertize from %s to %s" > ;; syntax-propertize--done pos) > (set (make-local-variable 'parse-sexp-lookup-properties) t) > (save-excursion > (with-silent-modifications ... > where > (if (null syntax-propertize-function) > wouldn't pos a problem. > However, when called from syntax-propertize-function, this certainly > wont be null, ..... It might well be when syntax-propertize is called directly from syntax-ppss. This happens even when syntax-propertize-function is nil. > .... then the propertize-branch is entered. Might the branches be > simple bound wrong, i.e. reverse? No, I don't think so. syntax-propertize--done is supposed to be the marker of upper limit of where the properties are valid. In the case where there's no syntax-propertize-function, one might as well set this to a high value, which likely prevents syntax-propertize being called too often. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).