From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: mode-line size and position indicator Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:36:57 +0300 Message-ID: <83pobj7riu.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83mv6o9a7m.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1503664661 30233 195.159.176.226 (25 Aug 2017 12:37:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 12:37:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Nick Helm Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Aug 25 14:37:36 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 1dlDrX-0006vn-AQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 25 Aug 2017 14:37:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53082 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dlDre-0004Ce-2p for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 25 Aug 2017 08:37:30 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52642) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dlDrS-0004B5-Iv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Aug 2017 08:37:19 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dlDrN-00016k-U9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Aug 2017 08:37:18 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:52117) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dlDrN-00016f-QY; Fri, 25 Aug 2017 08:37:13 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2631 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1dlDrM-0003rz-VF; Fri, 25 Aug 2017 08:37:13 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Nick Helm on Fri, 25 Aug 2017 21:57:35 +1200) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:217811 Archived-At: > From: Nick Helm > CC: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 21:57:35 +1200 > > In the other case, I wanted the code to run quickly during rapid > scrolling manoeuvres, so I tried to condense the math as much as > possible at the cost of dealing with larger variables. That was the idea > anyway. Did you actually see any tangible slowdown in using the "slower" code? I very much doubt that you'd see any effect, whereas complicating the code has an immediate clear effect on its readability. IME, such micro-optimizations are almost never needed, and shouldn't be done without measurements.