From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ihor Radchenko Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Partly deferred font-locking? Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 14:36:11 +0000 Message-ID: <87lem795wk.fsf@localhost> References: <87bkn52dso.fsf@web.de> <834jsxm0c7.fsf@gnu.org> <871qo03omi.fsf@web.de> <83zgaolu7o.fsf@gnu.org> <87o7r3gajc.fsf@web.de> <83cz7jc1d6.fsf@gnu.org> <87ilhbg8dw.fsf@web.de> <83a62nc03x.fsf@gnu.org> <87r0vz96d6.fsf@localhost> <838ri7bzam.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="18444"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: michael_heerdegen@web.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 12 16:00:18 2023 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 1pFz3x-0004JM-Cs for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2023 16:00:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pFygH-00059H-TL; Thu, 12 Jan 2023 09:35:49 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pFygG-00058x-9M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2023 09:35:48 -0500 Original-Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pFyg8-0002uB-Um for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2023 09:35:42 -0500 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 037082405AC for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2023 15:35:38 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1673534139; bh=QNOtjdsLpLB4YX9RCsJ/qq19vgpWWv6A41pMwXfpcI0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=fNAyWk/o9+aUZVFn4ubEPHEJyav3Nc3ahsTrH/Hdk1elpRPyHuAigwN6uxGq4N3Z1 6z6n/dZrqlplZfivnpNH+X3Hc2fiWwuYhb/oa3SleJOAjjLcP4+zzUjgWcJTL0KmED 8vKGDFiYbCTemH/NKy1Z5KaRct6g7q3rnn+bLkVMb0tSVB91O3O+QgCBLX6TaM9sdG ItG3Y93KS0sPEERinTBlCQGu4TzC2eq7bhYXFMotWtI0W1ogmatIud0fflgLEfFLhF lucyrGXYLXegaSxnTqJCr7qqECczLStdOvEj++HLweqKDHw7210iBnn25nWFTvSvwV SBJFFz6pCwX1A== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Nt6Xp2nZJz6tmp; Thu, 12 Jan 2023 15:35:38 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <838ri7bzam.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.66; envelope-from=yantar92@posteo.net; helo=mout02.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:302379 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> More complex fontification may stumble on _editing_ long lines - if >> fontification is performed line-by-line, long lines can slow down the >> performance significantly (which is a known problem). It is often >> a reasonable trade-off to defer re-fontification while editing a long >> line and re-fontify it later. I have stumbled upon this issue myself in >> my parser-based fontification for Org. > > It's a trade-off: you assume that users don't want to see the > fontifications change in near real-time when editing long lines, but > that is just an assumption, not necessarily true. You are right. However, I am pretty sure that many users will prefer having font-lock stop ongoing fontification when they try to enter key sequence. Or, at least, when they try to enter a key and fontification is taking more than something like `jit-lock-non-stealth-time' variable (defaulting to ~0.1 sec). -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at