From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: bug-reference-prog-mode slows down CC Mode's scrolling by ~7% Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2021 16:55:36 +0300 Message-ID: <83eea4wilj.fsf@gnu.org> References: <838s0eyyjg.fsf@gnu.org> <83eea5ygub.fsf@gnu.org> <835yvgyijv.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="10149"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: acm@muc.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 04 15:56:17 2021 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 1mMW9Z-0002Ss-JP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 04 Sep 2021 15:56:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49860 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mMW9Y-0003P8-EI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 04 Sep 2021 09:56:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:56474) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mMW8w-0002gs-59 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Sep 2021 09:55:38 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:60718) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mMW8v-0006Dp-Dq; Sat, 04 Sep 2021 09:55:37 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:4107 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mMW8u-0003Lh-Vg; Sat, 04 Sep 2021 09:55:37 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Stefan Monnier on Sat, 04 Sep 2021 09:36:04 -0400) 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:273877 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: acm@muc.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2021 09:36:04 -0400 > > >> It changes the overall behavior a bit, yes. And of course, that might > >> trigger bugs somewhere, like any other change. But other than that, it > >> should not change the actual final result other than how fast we get to > >> it, no. > > > > I'm looking at this from the POV of someone who writes a function to > > be registered with JIT font-lock. They need to understand these > > details to be able to write code which will do what they want. > > Why should they? To achieve their goals, of course. I really don't understand why we are having this conversation. It's almost as if you claimed that documenting non-trivial behavior is a bad idea, or a luxury. But you cannot be seriously thinking that. > This description has been valid for a while and the changes discussed > here do not impact it at all. Excuse me, but the jit-lock-bounds was almost completely undocumented, until I did that a few days ago. So what description are you alluding to which has been valid? > > They would still know about the automatic ordering because if some > > other function gets put at the first place, the results will be > > different, and that needs to be explained. > > I don't see in what sense "the results will be different". > Which results are you talking a bout? The results of running jit-lock-functions. those which really perform fontifications result in faces, others result in whatever they do.