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: CC Mode with font-lock-maximum-decoration 2 Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2022 21:51:47 +0300 Message-ID: <83o7wuva9o.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83y1w0w0gk.fsf@gnu.org> <83pmhcvugm.fsf@gnu.org> <83czdbwjfr.fsf@gnu.org> <837d3jvu9f.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfm6veqa.fsf@gnu.org> <83pmhavdim.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="39454"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 08 20:53:59 2022 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 1oL7t0-000A3E-Ht for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 08 Aug 2022 20:53:58 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50114 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oL7sz-0006ms-Ke for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 08 Aug 2022 14:53:57 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57572) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oL7r7-0005xK-AM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Aug 2022 14:52:01 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:52460) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oL7r6-0003RF-RM; Mon, 08 Aug 2022 14:52:00 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=/dn+JmxZbqOpJIKtFEoog6su16aZlLvQHv1Q6YnJQ2E=; b=U0aXSA5Co8uO k8s9N8jLIkB1VHFdksgWCkgH8CsGnRiOiw6UCCJ3z9coA7kokLBrBiPMFJNpSboU7r49yWsTW0Igj Ka2KOz1/TkG0EWRtZmusL8GY5Mm0f9Y9HeemfGsfp8Om7jdRsH9ZAGXoQcLzPe4Kl8gW8js1p3KBa hth5UMS5SGOOYf5dckNbbzlO0SGWM6/L2drGxktayfh6gNc3Ix9qrayZjgJ1nxAhp3LUn/5HFfiFS 0F5n0bc6xW0zR6TsDN6AIIriFWco6ButIql8gbPxETg6LXbnMiy/iUIzCaviZiBxY8chCZ2/cXlOu 6YZWvmE93jVADIgQB63VCw==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=1584 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 1oL7r5-0000DQ-86; Mon, 08 Aug 2022 14:51:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Alan Mackenzie on Mon, 8 Aug 2022 18:41:01 +0000) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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:293281 Archived-At: > Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2022 18:41:01 +0000 > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Alan Mackenzie > > > And btw, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you > > saying that level 2 is enough for fontifications in C mode? > > No. > > > If so, what are we losing when compared to the value t, and if we don't > > lose anything important, why do we need any fontifications beyond what > > level 2 gives us? > > We lose accuracy. That is important to a lot of people, including the > many who have sent in bug reports because of lack of accuracy. Then what is the importance of these measurements of yours? The fact that at level 2 C mode is only slightly slower than Lisp mode is therefore purely academic: you don't expect anyone to use it, and don't recommend using it. > > For Lisp, btw, the difference between level 2 and t is negligible. > > And the same goes for most/all other modes, which is the reason why we > > have set the value to t years ago. I'm quite sure at that time the > > difference between 2 and t for C mode was also very small. > > Martin Stjernholm wrote (what has become) the current level 3 around 20 > years ago, noting specifically it was expected to be slower than before, > and that the new level 2 was comparable in both speed and accuracy to the > old level 3. Since then level 3 has become considerably more accurate > and quite a bit slower, too. That's almost certainly what happened.