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: Tue, 09 Aug 2022 19:59:36 +0300 Message-ID: <83r11ptksn.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83sfm6veqa.fsf@gnu.org> <83pmhavdim.fsf@gnu.org> <83o7wuva9o.fsf@gnu.org> <83mtceupbx.fsf@gnu.org> <83lerxvfnu.fsf@gnu.org> <838rnxvdcq.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="6729"; 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 Tue Aug 09 19:01:29 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 1oLSbg-0001aS-J5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2022 19:01:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56052 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oLSbf-0002rx-Gc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2022 13:01:27 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45500) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oLSa4-0000rH-Ih for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2022 12:59:48 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:43108) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oLSa3-0000uj-OZ; Tue, 09 Aug 2022 12:59:47 -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=OhseEzMsSIUY6kfl7fSJu6HEqlO1u5JoUdIN8E77UIw=; b=Zmv+E/mC6bZb +BU8hzs9LroudqgyQYuffV/VrxT4HLkqzQzhT6DVO3bCZHkPY0UPmEK+KMK3dttQGNwFh+30hPQlM DQq6XdpdnwHzBwZjU7y0DtSsGT0vx5KGbUOe03chzLfFN2CfCFtHoMMgXMmzEhJ49S5EbspZrkWFw fT6a8dcst3NB6BeWmSPQtmpWdRs7qb9vX0KNcPwML4/YEnIy/oTCzCbs6EenPZeUMnsq/wqlEnso+ qAZCgOVYkqHk0XLKsy3ekMDUo6iD26UBMs7A65JglNkpp6wmfbCeQI07QYxRx1U7GHjRcmpHgfcXe uQNQ6Ux692aW/ZMc0YimjA==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=2924 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 1oLSa3-0000jD-8b; Tue, 09 Aug 2022 12:59:47 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Alan Mackenzie on Tue, 9 Aug 2022 16:36:04 +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:293323 Archived-At: > Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2022 16:36:04 +0000 > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Alan Mackenzie > > > We are not talking about my personal customizations, we are talking > > about what CC Mode does by default. If we'd changed the default to be > > level 2 for CC Mode, I could understand your line of reasoning. But > > since you don't think this should be the default, I say what CC Mode > > does at level 2 is not of practical importance for making CC Mode fast > > enough. > > Fast enough for what? Fast enough for editing free of annoying delays and sluggishness. > CC Mode at level 3 is fast enough for many, probably most, users. I don't think so. How am I different from other users? If you think I always use an unoptimized build, you are wrong: my production sessions run fully optimized builds, and CC Mode still feels sluggish, perhaps because I unconsciously compare it with other major mode (like ELisp). > Over the years there've been fewer complaints about speed than > correctness, and most of these have been in connection with unusual > files. There's never any objection to more speed, but for those who > really want instantaneous response, there is level 2, or even level > 1, and beyond that, fundamental-mode. What you describe is factually incorrect, but I don't want to argue about whether we did or didn't have complaints. I'm complaining now (and did so a few months ago, but maybe you forgot). > I do assume that you use level 2 when you're a user (as distinct > from the maintainer). Am I right? No, you are wrong. I use the default all the time. And since you didn't really describe the effect of going down to level 2, I cannot even begin thinking whether using level 2 is worth considering for my purposes.