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 14:26:13 +0000 Message-ID: <87r0vz96d6.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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="30908"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Michael Heerdegen , 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 15:40:59 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 1pFylE-0007Gz-Av for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2023 15:40:56 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pFyWi-0007JE-VH; Thu, 12 Jan 2023 09:25:56 -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 1pFyWa-0007I9-S7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2023 09:25:48 -0500 Original-Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pFyWY-0001Ty-RP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2023 09:25:48 -0500 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C122240045 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2023 15:25:43 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1673533544; bh=tcnlYhVDQGpYlg4G3vzTE34cxSHaRAHVNbTeyl6XDk0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=P7IBIQsfM/U9Qok3TqFVRBPNZGcfGjyNvFTaK5TGJbEm1WKyjJ2HpzMo9Qox4ECWf IK2cfH3c0yaewaF/O8T6dJikuiey+/ucZ7fyYy7XRUyS/Ptoo49VZDCUbYTP82F8nF wHamInTkUIIF/2FJrJndVw3LIimq1qE7hvcNhzI+JZyhhoWCuqwP2baJ3dgR91Q0DV g87k80uuU86ftlWBlB4pLhaknsyEXODk5BgoJfGX/s7647JUcgvqkdrlQmtrSRM7yp 47sDE3qCf+Ly1AfmnS+IFMMZ4Yrua1gnSJoOlyeKKtGTJPzIpQLEqu3t4Psx70S8Ur FZrKCfDs4oz3w== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Nt6KM1H8cz9rxM; Thu, 12 Jan 2023 15:25:40 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <83a62nc03x.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.65; envelope-from=yantar92@posteo.net; helo=mout01.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, 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:302375 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> So far I'm always using `while-no-input' and code that doesn't cause >> trouble when it gets interrupted. With that approach I had been able to >> avoid this issue nearly completely. > > while-no-input is not a way to interrupt an on-going calculation, > because it requires Emacs to check whether any input arrived, and > Emacs only does that when it's idle. Yet, there is observable difference. AFAIK, helm does use `while-no-input' and I've seen helm being non-blocking on functions that are not designed with interrupts in mind. I suspect that you are missing something. Also, on the subject of deferred font-locking: 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. -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at