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: [Emacs-diffs] scratch/widen-less a4ba846: Replace prog-widen with consolidating widen calls Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 16:02:21 +0000 Message-ID: <73b06dc6-f739-f943-9774-76ce2571054b@yandex.ru> References: <20171130214621.GA22157@ACM> <27985594-3bb4-ce88-8928-2ccfeac13eae@yandex.ru> <20171201154913.GB3840@ACM> <1e542021-e389-cca4-6acd-349efddb2652@yandex.ru> <20171201223529.GG3840@ACM> <4a94ec5c-efdd-50f1-ff4d-277f5f45c2df@yandex.ru> <20171202202855.GA22133@ACM> <20171203121854.GA5531@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 1512316988 30080 195.159.176.226 (3 Dec 2017 16:03:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 16:03:08 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:57.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/57.0 Cc: Tom Tromey , Vitalie Spinu , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie , Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 03 17:03:04 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 1eLWjN-0007VJ-E0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 03 Dec 2017 17:03:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39366 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eLWjU-0005HI-RL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 03 Dec 2017 11:03:08 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34045) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eLWit-0005Cx-TC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Dec 2017 11:02:32 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eLWip-00012M-1h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Dec 2017 11:02:31 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-lf0-x230.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c07::230]:39676) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eLWio-00011v-Qp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Dec 2017 11:02:26 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-lf0-x230.google.com with SMTP id l81so16493437lfl.6 for ; Sun, 03 Dec 2017 08:02:26 -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=NZQsF24KwSAA1e3ygxRso429QuLXhw0R8DHA7juB758=; b=teuxlyj1Vv2Vv954JlwoZpZqsyM8TfmsdZPAvxx9M9GinQaHVtj9OTQyFoaB/1+ulu 4QnWVw8l5pDhNgbJA28ObSK6/eAWWXyqv7A4mQrAfTVzKX6Kw61BYKu/q+hTcUxzVIow 77Psf+qnorVq4VkI+my6Li6HMKOOMqy+97H4doaeO2IEJLI0biSnFUs9JVIyjaqmK1vQ jT4jZRsMSf07xC3uCkM6353u3xKWw8sbmvYANmf7X7QU0N3n7XmpVNA3kFc7a8rTcV8n gSzqyGAwvdK6U06PAXdrJiDlADMvVpyAirlRwyIr4Ie1PI0GapAABJf64quZ8HSCTNms /zXA== 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=NZQsF24KwSAA1e3ygxRso429QuLXhw0R8DHA7juB758=; b=Nu+tjYIKHHlTBFhQrxfdnzSLCiTvm0fDf4X9jHqPecGOADs17XxxgYU8SLi6FasXr8 RpWVS6xsnTLHdswgfXQNgv1eq2I4miebO1ou/Pw8HNuhF3pa7Z9Tuk+UYkE09pGAkh09 RgcBfjNexvg6CB9L7Uai4FSUfVa4/SMxamNYFb+WRr4JMTUylIDJFBGT4Gt8/Z7wp9bI 5xMA0cWFbVXYlRubQjDHIQG37hnaYsKyBjK7pV+zJn9dIQx+5S5sRVLVd7WB91bRZoU8 R2chc9PjUpDCioS9xcK0LW2tPmGvIOc3WD3HoqfFkBfoBrio6eNwwIedJUu8HV43cnP4 3Bdg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX6yMkt1z6XrsaaXLvi6UMN927iv1YTVKJ0q+4rk4gcfFukTH209 X5w7ngMAhwEyFwrh+6uGzE3FNvyHYco= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYVSWlMF3+sjnuEmwgfLPCg5jYl1QdWCY7xl97BCy5lQdnCyhaGpKtfHgOUARcJYTbXGlDyZw== X-Received: by 10.25.17.208 with SMTP id 77mr6295029lfr.132.1512316944886; Sun, 03 Dec 2017 08:02:24 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from [10.1.2.111] ([194.181.106.111]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id u11sm1979978lfk.75.2017.12.03.08.02.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 03 Dec 2017 08:02:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20171203121854.GA5531@ACM> Content-Language: en-US X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:4010:c07::230 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:220653 Archived-At: On 12/3/17 12:18 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> That would potentially solve some percentage of the problems with >> MMM support. But what about the rest? > > They would clearly need other work doing on them. Richard suggested > building something similar to narrowing for the excusive use of MMM. This sounds fairly different from your islands proposal. And the notion that you've already described a full solution, and was only waiting for approval. > Standards are created by like-minded experts coming together, thrashing > things out, and finally agreeing on some reasonable set of compromises; > not by a lone hacker, no matter how expert, throwing something together > in his bedroom. That's very debatable. Most good standards come from working experience, and usually some working product (or a codebase). A lot of standards that start in a meeting room don't leave one. Just look at the multitude of discussions here that don't move anywhere. Also see "design by committee". Discussion is important, of course, but it has to be constructive from all sides. > It may be possible to rebuild CC Mode to conform to this "standard", but > it would be a lot of work, the "standard" would need enhancements[*], CC > Mode would run more slowly, and its users wouldn't see any benefit. Would you like to provide a benchmark that Stefan could try and see if the syntax-ppss based code indeed runs "more slowly"? Anyway, this seems irrelevant to this discussion.