From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Default of jit-lock-stealth-time Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:31:17 +0100 Message-ID: <85abz0ovca.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <85tzxazb8r.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87ps7x4clj.fsf@pacem.orebokech.com> <85irdpweuq.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <85649pw652.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1172565108 18601 80.91.229.12 (27 Feb 2007 08:31:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:31:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Andreas Schwab , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 27 09:31:39 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HLxkF-0003Bg-Em for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:31:35 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HLxkE-0005CJ-Pi for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 03:31:34 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HLxk3-0005AV-2m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 03:31:23 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HLxk1-00058U-G7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 03:31:22 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HLxk1-00058Q-AB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 03:31:21 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-in-12.arcor-online.net ([151.189.21.52]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1HLxjz-0004em-SH; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 03:31:20 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-in-12-z2.arcor-online.net (mail-in-12-z2.arcor-online.net [151.189.8.29]) by mail-in-12.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26CBA54391; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:31:18 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from mail-in-09.arcor-online.net (mail-in-09.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.49]) by mail-in-12-z2.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8848279468; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:31:17 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from lola.goethe.zz (dslb-084-061-055-100.pools.arcor-ip.net [84.61.55.100]) by mail-in-09.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 975ED34A671; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:31:17 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 279451D17415; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:31:17 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Tue\, 27 Feb 2007 02\:38\:51 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.94 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:66910 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: > More discussion of who has, and who has not, been inconvenienced by > stealth fontification is not really useful, because we already know > that it is a substantial inconvenience for some users. And let us not forget that this inconvience is unexpected, gives Emacs a bad name (since it sucks up CPU even when idle) and is non-debuggable, since timer functions run with quit turned off. It is completely impossible for the average affected user (heck, it was even for me until Richard gave me a direct pointer to stealth fontification after a bug report of mine) to find out which of the thousands of settings inside of Emacs is responsible for the problem. So it is a bad idea for a default setting. > The question now is whether it _avoids_ a substantial inconvenience > for a substantial fraction of users. That would make it a good idea for a prominently accessible user option. I'd still think it a bad idea for a default setting. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum