From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 20:48:14 +0300 Message-ID: <834ku41km9.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83o8sf3r7i.fsf@gnu.org> <2E218879-0F24-4A20-B210-263C8D0BEEA4@gmail.com> <838sjh2red.fsf@gnu.org> <83369o3bvb.fsf@gnu.org> <816186eb-baac-f5c7-04df-a3f30780d91d@yandex.ru> <83k1301qq4.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="10897"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: casouri@gmail.com, akrl@sdf.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, dgutov@yandex.ru To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 31 19:54:13 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jJL5Z-0002iQ-9x for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 19:54:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42486 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jJL5Y-0002mx-CV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:54:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53353) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jJKzh-0005Ed-Jb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:48:12 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:43956) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jJKzh-00082t-0J; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:48:09 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2281 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jJKzg-0002YF-0h; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:48:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Stefan Monnier on Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:16:33 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:246137 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: Dmitry Gutov , casouri@gmail.com, akrl@sdf.org, > emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:16:33 -0400 > > > It should be obvious that sending a buffer as a single string is less > > efficient than letting tree-sitter access buffer text directly. We > > just need an appropriate API for that (maybe there is one already, I > > didn't take a look at their sources since January). > > My benchmark say that `buffer-string` takes about 1/3 the time of > `parse-partial-sexp`, so letting tree-sitter access our buffer text > directly is unlikely to give more than a 30% speed up. Sure, but we never call parse-partial-sexp on the entire buffer, do we? > It doesn't mean it wouldn't be a desirable optimization, but it does > mean that it likely won't make a large difference as to whether it's > "fast enough". I disagree. Communicating with a C library by making a string out of buffer text is extremely inelegant and inefficient. We shouldn't do that except when the strings are very short.