Re: with-output-to-temp-buffer

[Kevin Rodgers <ihs_4664@yahoo.com>]

Drew Adams wrote:
> I had this code:
> 
>   (set-buffer (get-buffer-create "foo"))
>   (let (...) ...)
>   (select-frame (make-frame ...))
> 
> I changed it to this code:
> 
>   (with-output-to-temp-buffer "foo" ...)
>   (let ((temp-buffer-setup-hook nil)
>         (temp-buffer-show-functions nil)
>         ...)
>     ...)
>   (select-window (get-buffer-window "foo" 'visible))
>   (modify-frame-parameters (selected-frame) ...)
> 
> The rest of the code (i.e. "...") is identical. The latter code runs about
> twice as fast (clock time)! I don't use any print functions inside the
> with-* - I use only `insert', so I wouldn't think that with-* would be of
> any special benefit here.
> 
> I don't understand this. A glance at the C code makes me think that
> with-output-to-temp-buffer would only do more, not less, stuff.

How do with-current-buffer and with-temp-buffer perform compared to the
original version and the with-output-to-temp-buffer?

> (Thinking that the difference might be make-frame vs
> modify-frame-parameters, I tried using modify-frame-* for the first code
> too, but that made no difference. I guess it must be with-* that speeds
> things up.)

Hmmm...

-- 
Kevin