From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: What's the best (i.e. least bad) way to re-redisplay? Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2021 18:10:46 +0000 Message-ID: References: <83r1egu2xx.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="17769"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 30 20:12:02 2021 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 1mKllJ-0004Nx-Ia for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 20:12:01 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49208 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mKllH-0003YF-J5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 14:11:59 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38912) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mKlkL-0002p2-HH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 14:11:01 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:58496 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mKlkJ-0001oB-KE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 14:11:01 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 31563 invoked by uid 3782); 30 Aug 2021 18:10:47 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4fe15b65.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.91.101]) (using STARTTLS) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Aug 2021 20:10:47 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 7628 invoked by uid 1000); 30 Aug 2021 18:10:46 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83r1egu2xx.fsf@gnu.org> X-Submission-Agent: TMDA/1.3.x (Ph3nix) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de Received-SPF: pass client-ip=193.149.48.1; envelope-from=acm@muc.de; helo=mail.muc.de X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, 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: 2.1.23 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:273524 Archived-At: Hello, Eli and Stefan. On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 09:37:14 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 20:09:24 +0000 > > From: Alan Mackenzie > > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > I think something along the lines of > > > (run-with-timer 0 nil > > > (lambda (buf) > > > (with-current-buffer buf (font-lock-flush))) > > > (current-buffer)) > > > is the cleanest that comes to mind. > > Thanks. That's probably cleaner than a direct use of > > jit-lock-force-redisplay. > Why is it cleaner? jit-lock and font-lock include provision for the > fontification function to tell jit-lock what was the region actually > fontified, and that will trigger a call to jit-lock-force-redisplay in > a timer. Why not use an existing mechanism? In the end, I coded up a direct use of jit-lock-force-redisplay in a one-time timer. The reason I preferred this over font-lock-flush is that j-l-f-r says in its doc string that it forces a redisplay, whereas f-l-f merely says it declares (BEG END) as being out of date. I hope to post my proposed new code on emacs-devel soon. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).