From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Joakim Jalap Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Overlays as an AA-tree Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 17:52:52 +0100 Message-ID: <87zihzmfbv.fsf@fastmail.com> References: <87d1jylv43.fsf@fastmail.com> <87fujv64mn.fsf@hochschule-trier.de> <87fujvpkzc.fsf@fastmail.com> <87vasr5tqd.fsf@hochschule-trier.de> <87d1ex4kon.fsf@hochschule-trier.de> <87d1evod6x.fsf@fastmail.com> <877f53ftab.fsf@hochschule-trier.de> <878tpjnxkt.fsf@fastmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1486400368 24172 195.159.176.226 (6 Feb 2017 16:59:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 16:59:28 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (berkeley-unix) Cc: Andreas Politz , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 06 17:59:21 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1camdL-0005oU-WF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 17:59:20 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49527 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1camcN-0000Ab-Cg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 11:58:19 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35417) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1camXD-0004w1-LK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 11:53:00 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1camXA-00067f-LF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 11:52:59 -0500 Original-Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:54799) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1camXA-00066s-CU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 11:52:56 -0500 Original-Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 418B72064C; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 11:52:54 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 06 Feb 2017 11:52:54 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.com; h=cc :content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=1/o9mxg6ushj6CFdzxW5KZx9A7I=; b=yAq4zC E4FkVq2E2Yil8OombO1Js6dO5eLdNlkhxQ02Yd11GdSIqborwUHzICPQpLKys5XV LuxOSfGIV6KRLOUb7MxBguUISF6Idpr0WU7Z2Tachq6eKJ9Q85mRqgIneT4RGnRC 043WD+QwTdIxTEn+1hirNYm/7b7jE/DxaOuso= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=1/o9mxg6ushj6C FdzxW5KZx9A7I=; b=Ibnp6ZoaqU+zYxEO0Zq5UOy0dvRB+hgjMWPzd+gdIvcdqo nXrcQvXKg+RoZxgQUZKyibuleLD7QBfWcgND1u70phsqTA0p++wgJ0mWVIscjIzL 4LxCI2tlJNfrmGPY1+CcyrCUcm0zVTBIY4MB6jajkAhBD3SiQovfn7lnS4zIg= X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: 48HZr6p2y9R+Csv6RZ4dOamVAzHsjmv1rPAmDOqiqlfh 1486399973 Original-Received: from genserv (unknown [5.150.202.248]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 6D2FA7E320; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 11:52:53 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Mon, 06 Feb 2017 10:46:09 -0500") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 66.111.4.25 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:212045 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >> Maybe not... but it still sounds a bit expensive to me, spontaneously. > > The number of overlays whose boundary happens to be just at the point of > insertion is likely to be usually 0, sometimes 1 and very rarely more. True. Even rarer I guess that they have differing front-advance types. Still I think finding those overlays, deleting them if they are there and then reinserting them requires quite a few traversals of the tree. Maybe it's not a big deal perfomance wise, but I have a feeling the code could be a bit messy. (But my feelings are eusually not correct) -- Joakim