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: Scrolling commands and skipping redisplay, was: Re: emacs rendering comparisson between emacs23 and emacs26.3 Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 18:56:22 +0300 Message-ID: <83eesvmj15.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20200403174757.GA8266@ACM> <20200404104553.GA5329@ACM> <07fe3b69-3ab2-3173-0696-cb17809e2b91@gmx.at> <83blo7v68b.fsf@gnu.org> <1845d7aa-9ae4-3d95-6a30-c7b1d8d8adec@gmx.at> <83a73qt6zs.fsf@gnu.org> <97c4254e-ff43-8402-3645-f713c408c245@gmx.at> <83y2r9syby.fsf@gnu.org> <20200405195753.GG5049@ACM> <542b48ba-4dfa-820f-ba50-4b147ab6d8e2@yandex.ru> <0a5f70aa-4985-8f8d-81d6-6ac4a60a94f9@yandex.ru> <838sj8sphk.fsf@gnu.org> <834ktwsmfw.fsf@gnu.org> <83imibqsmm.fsf@gnu.org> <478c2aab-a5fc-61c2-02e2-2d9846b95273@yandex.ru> <83v9m9nltx.fsf@gnu.org> <83tv1rn8fx.fsf@gnu.org> <4f8bb277-b376-97bf-8539-799688d8e66d@yandex.ru> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="2682"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: acm@muc.de, rrandresf@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, rudalics@gmx.at To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 10 17:57:50 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 1jMw2O-0000aR-RJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 17:57:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36070 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jMw2N-0007C3-UG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 11:57:47 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60950) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jMw1U-00065W-QB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 11:56:53 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:53037) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jMw1U-0005OO-74; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 11:56:52 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4838 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jMw1J-00008T-0c; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 11:56:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4f8bb277-b376-97bf-8539-799688d8e66d@yandex.ru> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Fri, 10 Apr 2020 17:45:43 +0300) 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:246777 Archived-At: > Cc: acm@muc.de, rudalics@gmx.at, rrandresf@gmail.com, rms@gnu.org, > emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Dmitry Gutov > Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 17:45:43 +0300 > > On 10.04.2020 09:47, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> Cc: acm@muc.de, rudalics@gmx.at, rrandresf@gmail.com, rms@gnu.org, > >> emacs-devel@gnu.org > >> From: Dmitry Gutov > >> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 01:17:51 +0300 > >> > >> You have addressed only about 30% of my previous email. > > > > I don't have anything to say about the rest. > > Not even about the last patch I sent? What would you like me to say about it? > > Depends on what you mean by "precision". They might very well miss > > some parts of the buffer entirely, i.e. never see them on display. > > This may or may not be important, depending on the use case. An > > editor is not supposed to skip portions of the buffer when scrolling > > continuously. > > And that's what my last patch helps it avoid doing, by default. It does? Then maybe I didn't understand what it does. > Speaking of the loss of precision, though. You said you'd never make > that choice, and yet you recommend the use of jit-lock-defer-time. It > has the very same problem, doesn't it? Yes. And that's why I personally don't use jit-lock-defer-time even on slow machines. But if someone is prepared to pay that price, jit-lock-defer-time is IMO a better solution because it is much faster (and also much cleaner, if you ask me). > When I said "worse", I didn't mean to say "slower", I meant worse in how > it looks. Performance-wise, jit-lock-defer-time=0 and > fast-but-imprecise-scrolling=t work about the same here. On my system, jit-lock-defer-time=0.1 is much faster that fast-but-imprecise-scrolling=t.