From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: jit-lock-antiblink-grace Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 20:11:15 +0000 Message-ID: <20191125201115.GD4496@ACM> References: <83k198ly94.fsf@gnu.org> <83sgnuh5cq.fsf@gnu.org> <87k17qozii.fsf@gmail.com> <83wobps0zy.fsf@gnu.org> <20191125184650.GA4496@ACM> <20191125192628.GC4496@ACM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="81616"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_T=E1vora?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 25 21:19:33 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iZKpX-000L2y-EJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 21:19:31 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47884 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iZKpW-00053n-2S for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 15:19:30 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50595) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iZKok-0004Zz-OM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 15:18:43 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iZKhe-0001uB-9w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 15:11:23 -0500 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:36432 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iZKhc-0001sA-L7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 15:11:22 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 46166 invoked by uid 3782); 25 Nov 2019 20:11:17 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4FE15ACF.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.90.207]) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 21:11:15 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 1540 invoked by uid 1000); 25 Nov 2019 20:11:15 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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 [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 193.149.48.1 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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:242715 Archived-At: Hello, Joåo. On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 19:45:40 +0000, João Távora wrote: > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 7:26 PM Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > > So can you explain your new objection? > > Consistency. > Best consistency tends do arise when taking a good > hard look of the pros and cons of each change, instead > of citing blanket policy. > > All little tweaks to Emacs functionality which "everybody > is bound to want" end up irritating people immensely, > [ I could remember some introduced by you, but this > is besides the discussion. ] > > I can't remember any arguments you may have made > Here they are: see the second paragraph and the ensuing > discussion, where Eli suggests benchmarks: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2019-10/msg00537.html > I can summarize: > 1. There are no adverse or surprising behaviors; > 2. There is negligible performance impact; > 3. There is a demonstrated benefit; I could have made exactly these arguments for enabling "my" new features by default. In fact, I might well have done so. ;-) But wiser heads prevailed. For one of these features, fast-but-imprecise-scrolling, there was even a massive performance advantage. It remains disabled by default. Point 2 may hold. Points 1 and 3 are pure speculation by you, you not being the most impartial judge. For me, at least, point 1 doesn't hold. Having the fontification delayed until 2 seconds of inactivity would for me be intensely irritating. Context fontification is bad enough, but that at least is justified by performance reasons. As for point 3, there would be no benefit for me, at least. I want to see correct fontification when I type a quote mark, not 2 seconds of inactivity later. > I've only done so much work testing each of these > assertions, and I'd of course be interested in hearing > (concrete) objections. There will be users who will not like this new minor mode. It should not be imposed upon them. Anyhow, as I said, I will accept Eli's judgment on this point. > João -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).