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: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 10:10:07 +0300 Message-ID: <83wo6qpi5s.fsf@gnu.org> References: <671b5b41-663d-5ab9-f022-dc6c5ce54dd0@yandex.ru> <83r1x1sqkx.fsf@gnu.org> <83lfn9s63n.fsf@gnu.org> <83h7xvqsgc.fsf@gnu.org> <90749329-ccb1-f96e-29c0-b4ecbb81d1d4@yandex.ru> <837dyrqews.fsf@gnu.org> <20200407201018.GD4009@ACM> <835zeaqz8q.fsf@gnu.org> <20200408070215.GA4106@ACM> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="89704"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: rudalics@gmx.at, rrandresf@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, dgutov@yandex.ru To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 08 09:11:01 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 1jM4rV-000NAn-Co for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 09:11:01 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56836 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jM4rU-00020n-Eo for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 03:11:00 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36300) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jM4qq-0001a2-Aj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 03:10:21 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:47482) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jM4qp-00069L-8y; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 03:10:19 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2255 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jM4qd-0002CE-PX; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 03:10:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20200408070215.GA4106@ACM> (message from Alan Mackenzie on Wed, 8 Apr 2020 07:02:15 +0000) 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:246642 Archived-At: > Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 07:02:15 +0000 > Cc: dgutov@yandex.ru, rudalics@gmx.at, rrandresf@gmail.com, > emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org > From: Alan Mackenzie > > > > Is this not jit-lock-context-time? > > > I have no idea. But if you are saying that this is "normal", then I > > disagree: I don't see why the change in fontification after DEL is > > instantaneous, while the change after typing 'e' takes such annoyingly > > long time. Is jit-lock-context-time not involved in the former? if > > so, why? > > Is the problem more the asymmetry between the deletion and the > insertion than the actual time taken after the reinsertion? Not the asymmetry, the slow refontifciation in the latter case. It won't help me if both refontifciations were "symmetrically" slow. > > > However, first setting font-lock-support-mode to nil, then > > > reinitialising font-lock, deleting then reinserting that "e", the line > > > after the else _never_ gets its (lack of) face back. > > > So this is still rather a mystery, isn't it? > > It's context fontification. I'm quite sure of that, now. To restart > jit-lock with a new j-l-context-time involves explicitly getting rid of > a timer and allowing it to restart. Then perhaps the solution is to reduce the default value of jit-lock-context-time?