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: On being web-friendly and why info must die Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 18:28:43 +0100 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <87388oka0k.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <20141205123549.GA29331@thyrsus.com> <2815659.zRQ0WWWeRr@descartes> <20141205175810.GD3120@thyrsus.com> <87lhmlncb1.fsf@earlgrey.lan> <20141205193643.GB5067@thyrsus.com> <87tx19rd1b.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <20141205215138.GF7784@thyrsus.com> <54823617.4000406@cs.ucla.edu> <83k325195l.fsf@gnu.org> <5482D94B.2070102@cs.ucla.edu> <5484FF31.5010808@cs.ucla.edu> <5485FC59.5030700@cs.ucla.edu> <83k320wy93.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1418146177 2793 80.91.229.3 (9 Dec 2014 17:29:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 17:29:37 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 09 18:29:28 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XyObI-0003U5-Ag for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 18:29:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41604 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XyObH-0004Uy-RU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 12:29:27 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40457) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XyOar-0004Mu-DK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 12:29:06 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XyOam-0000sH-8Q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 12:29:01 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:56664) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XyOam-0000sB-1c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 12:28:56 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XyOal-0003C5-15 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 18:28:55 +0100 Original-Received: from x2f4bbba.dyn.telefonica.de ([2.244.187.186]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 18:28:55 +0100 Original-Received: from dak by x2f4bbba.dyn.telefonica.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 18:28:55 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 26 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: x2f4bbba.dyn.telefonica.de X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:5CuhnXK1jiLe+Yo3XjSSxlp3UQw= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:179579 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Stefan Monnier >> Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 21:19:34 -0500 >> Cc: emacs >> >> That's not what I'm talking about. I know that the MB/s processed by >> Texinfo-5 is much slower than Texinfo-4 and is unlikely to improve >> noticeably in the foreseeable future. What I'm asking is whether >> Texinfo-5 could be improved so that it can do the work by processing >> fewer megabytes, because it would only process the modified files: the >> Elisp manual is about 3MB of Texinfo code, but usually you only work on >> a single one of those files, which is at most 300kB, so doing >> separate-compilation would give you a speed up of at least 10, making >> the result a lot more tolerable (and on which we can have control, so if >> it's still not fast enough we can split the manual into smaller files). > > Makeinfo validates pointers and cross-references that could lead into > many other parts. Separate compilation would need to leave some info > about those other parts in a form that is much more easily readable. Much more easily readable than Texinfo source? Texinfo source does not seem hard to parse to me. What am I overlooking? -- David Kastrup