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: Saving the selection before killing Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 07:44:40 +0200 Message-ID: <85hco2z2nr.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <5fmk5pF3bo3fbU1@mid.individual.net> <87hco5xtbv.fsf@jurta.org> <868x9f30fo.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1184737492 18191 80.91.229.12 (18 Jul 2007 05:44:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 05:44:52 +0000 (UTC) Cc: juri@jurta.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jul 18 07:44:50 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 1IB2LC-0007yt-2Q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 07:44:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IB2LB-0006Wt-HI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 01:44:49 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IB2L9-0006Wo-9c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 01:44:47 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IB2L7-0006Wc-S4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 01:44:46 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IB2L7-0006WZ-OG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 01:44:45 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-04.arcor-online.net ([151.189.21.44]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IB2L6-0000yh-Ah; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 01:44:44 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-07-z2.arcor-online.net (mail-in-07-z2.arcor-online.net [151.189.8.19]) by mail-in-04.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86E1C17F6AD; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 07:44:42 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from mail-in-13.arcor-online.net (mail-in-13.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.53]) by mail-in-07-z2.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77DFA2C6A0F; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 07:44:42 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from lola.goethe.zz (dslb-084-061-042-236.pools.arcor-ip.net [84.61.42.236]) by mail-in-13.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3496722D164; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 07:44:42 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 0668D1C3ACCE; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 07:44:40 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Wed\, 18 Jul 2007 00\:41\:48 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.91.1/3690/Wed Jul 18 05:08:02 2007 on mail-in-13.arcor-online.net X-Virus-Status: Clean 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:75040 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: > The main problem I saw with it was working over non-local X > connections where it could lead to annoying and inexplicable > slowdowns. > > Is that an observation or a theoretical conclusion? That's what people frequently were complaining about on the XEmacs lists, and I am not really sure we did not also have a time with similar complaints. Now that was, unless I am mistaken, for large selections _from_ Emacs that were picked up elsewhere (like mark-whole-buffer would do), whereas the case we are debating is Emacs picking up selections from outside, and maybe megabyte selections are less common outside than inside. But if one is running more than one Emacs instance (and I don't know under which circumstances Emacs might offer _itself_ a selection), then we _have_ the same porential for large selections flying around. > The question is how much slowdown this feature adds when there is no > selection. Uh, why? Can we rule out that there are large selections? > How long does it take to determine that there is no selection? That should be reasonably fast. I would expect noticeable effects at most when running keyboard macros. However, keyboard macros that yank stuff are not really infrequent, and when one is running them on a whole buffer, checking the display remotely every time _might_ conceivably make a difference. In contrast to the above observation, this is, for now, a theoretical conclusion. This theoretical conclusion also means that if you go elsewhere while your keyboard macro runs and mark some text with the mouse, the keyboard macro will suddenly do something different. Perhaps we should ignore selections altogether when executing keyboard macros, not just in this case. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum