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: emacs rendering comparisson between emacs23 and emacs26.3 Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2020 17:03:54 +0300 Message-ID: <83r1wzqto5.fsf@gnu.org> References: <86tv2h2vww.fsf@gmail.com> <20200322123818.GB32470@ACM> <87eetk5swm.fsf@gnu.org> <20200326193128.GC14092@ACM> <86d08y4zsx.fsf@gmail.com> <83sghs7qdz.fsf@gnu.org> <83h7y63sjj.fsf@gnu.org> <834ku43c61.fsf@gnu.org> <83k12zz6ds.fsf@gnu.org> <054393f3-3873-ab6e-b325-0eca354d8838@gmx.at> <83eet0sqb2.fsf@gnu.org> <0315ea48-8eb3-38fa-67c1-2e2170a65168@gmx.at> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="80161"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: acm@muc.de, rrandresf@gmail.com, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 07 16:04:51 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 1jLoqQ-000Ki8-1L for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 07 Apr 2020 16:04:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47822 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jLoqP-0006qR-3S for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 07 Apr 2020 10:04:49 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50489) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jLopu-0006PS-15 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Apr 2020 10:04:19 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:57394) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jLopt-0006tu-9a; Tue, 07 Apr 2020 10:04:17 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2333 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jLopZ-0002p8-2K; Tue, 07 Apr 2020 10:03:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: <0315ea48-8eb3-38fa-67c1-2e2170a65168@gmx.at> (message from martin rudalics on Tue, 7 Apr 2020 10:32:07 +0200) 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:246598 Archived-At: > Cc: rrandresf@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, acm@muc.de > From: martin rudalics > Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2020 10:32:07 +0200 > > > (It might > > happen that some major mode's font-lock definitions end up rescanning > > much more, but that's a separate issue.) And frankly, what would we > > like Emacs to do instead? A change in a buffer can potentially affect > > the fontification of the rest of the buffer, and I don't think we > > would like Emacs to fail to update other windows showing the same > > buffer -- that would be against Emacs's description as "real-time" > > editor. > > It depends on what we consider a failure: I do not think that inserting > a "/*" in my window showing the top of my C buffer should cause the > window showing the bottom of my buffer consider everything part of a > comment starting at that "/*". If that is what the language syntax rules say, then yes, we should paint everything in comment face. If you disagree, then let's agree to disagree: I consider "inaccurate" display one of the worst things an editor can do to its users. > So what I would vote for in this case is that font-lock would specially > highlight the open paren that "stops seeing the comment as comment" so > the user is aware of the fact. How would that help if that parentheses is not shown in any window? And even if it is shown, do we really expect users to pay attention to that, and immediately understand that this parentheses with an unusual face explains the wrong display?