From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jason Rumney Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: font-lock-maximum-decoration should be 2 by default? Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 10:32:51 +0800 Message-ID: <877gsv7grw.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87wr0x8zxj.fsf@gmail.com> <831uj5bnid.fsf@gnu.org> <87obm98trc.fsf@gmail.com> <95FA6116C6194DAAA658F916B48C5E23@us.oracle.com> <874no12tan.fsf_-_@gmail.com> <83y5ld9seg.fsf@gnu.org> <177186CBFE1741FCBBB8F3D2A57ACB00@us.oracle.com> <83wr0wadnw.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1345343597 23763 80.91.229.3 (19 Aug 2012 02:33:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 02:33:17 +0000 (UTC) Cc: spinuvit@gmail.com, Drew Adams , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Aug 19 04:33:17 2012 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 1T2vKC-0004tk-8R for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 04:33:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37897 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T2vKB-0004bV-0D for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 22:33:11 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:34695) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T2vK6-0004bJ-Qj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 22:33:09 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T2vK5-0001GK-MM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 22:33:06 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pz0-f41.google.com ([209.85.210.41]:36346) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T2vK3-0001Fn-UU; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 22:33:04 -0400 Original-Received: by dadi14 with SMTP id i14so1615835dad.0 for ; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 19:33:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=pMJ9DE4b4G8aZERUJ2Tiec1nEQYk7RREURtl1CXNa9k=; b=tYCegM8iDdOlslcXBFknXTI+Gr8l68OlJu2CApj1o/JI6Ma2gwfiQn3YY9GzR+zCA1 6TAuts4y0BxU27yrcN91A6LdgyAANdtbQFP7rHjVLK5Uv5Xbw7oib0A9ZZcdwtxhqGWC sE1sZbCOz2M/MIJ52yBsqSIBeUUy0vlgyf2fsZREb4gaVJJadw+PalORZKTIWWRO0+cY Y3qqx3Ws1c5lMXlRcItmj3oW2t956sOgF+geNu5h3ymU0RFPSOF3hQbRTpuBwoO6lqQ3 PFlxIM/n9lFWNHQSH7qnmfHxU9/+VW8tCarycpZM6b7/WdDEvKEQvsMgZ7Xc4+Jri10/ h9xQ== Original-Received: by 10.68.223.164 with SMTP id qv4mr23399539pbc.20.1345343582181; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 19:33:02 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from home.jasonrumney.net ([180.75.28.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id vh7sm8118361pbc.22.2012.08.18.19.32.58 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 18 Aug 2012 19:33:01 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by home.jasonrumney.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B853A1BE0; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 10:32:51 +0800 (MYT) In-Reply-To: <83wr0wadnw.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 18 Aug 2012 09:59:31 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 209.85.210.41 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:152653 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: "Drew Adams" >> Cc: >> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:53:44 -0700 >> >> > > Interesting. I am curious of reasons for that. >> > >> > Performance. You don't gain much by omitting some fontifications >> > nowadays. The variable was introduced to get snappier redisplay; >> > since the need for that is no longer valid, the default was set to t. >> >> Do you have any proof of that being _the_ reason it was introduced: just for >> performance? > > No proof, just my faulty memory. In this case, not faulty: *** lisp/font-lock.el 1997-02-21 09:36:18 +0000 --- lisp/font-lock.el 1997-03-15 13:19:12 +0000 *************** *** 190,196 **** If a number, only buffers greater than this size have fontification messages.") ;;;###autoload ! (defvar font-lock-maximum-decoration nil "*Maximum decoration level for fontification. If nil, use the default decoration (typically the minimum available). If t, use the maximum decoration available. --- 190,196 ---- If a number, only buffers greater than this size have fontification messages.") ;;;###autoload ! (defvar font-lock-maximum-decoration t "*Maximum decoration level for fontification. If nil, use the default decoration (typically the minimum available). If t, use the maximum decoration available. *************** 1996-08-11 Richard Stallman * Version 19.33 released. 1997-09-15 Richard Stallman * Version 20.1 released. (I thought there was also a 19.34, but that might be my faulty memory, or maybe it was on a branch, so doesn't show up in the changelogs).