From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Tracking buffer positions across time, without markers (was Re: PL support) Date: Sun, 10 May 2020 23:19:01 -0400 Message-ID: References: <6a2c7d18-344e-fefb-63d5-79a99d0532fc@gmail.com> <942a8cb1-0382-cf83-5ff9-4e776c2660f0@gmail.com> <7f8bdd43-f4d7-e0a8-dcfa-6679215f9d44@gmail.com> <9e98ccbd-6b01-d076-79eb-6bd06ab803fb@gmail.com> <837dxjcijw.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="3044"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: cpitclaudel@gmail.com, joaotavora@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon May 11 05:19:51 2020 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 1jXyys-0000jT-Ef for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 11 May 2020 05:19:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42062 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jXyyr-0006Sa-Gp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 10 May 2020 23:19:49 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58154) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jXyyC-0005uk-MI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 10 May 2020 23:19:08 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:54655) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jXyyA-0007vt-Uw; Sun, 10 May 2020 23:19:07 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1B9E580611; Sun, 10 May 2020 23:19:05 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3598F8057C; Sun, 10 May 2020 23:19:03 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1589167143; bh=x+C4qPQogLXDTWMKO8UJguvL8MPsEhIliTa2Kl8QRTg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=S5VG8hfrJi2nCHs4/JvWwXz+nDI73O+Bqj5rJb7145sAADhfgql6dz3ZnlvuD1Udd SPZZBg3GC/zM9vAWHMt45ek+jwLo4n78djeRJZRbmCk/UNM6e5mkChAFqNqspg4ebS Als4fgfARsVqRpT4eu0LN0+IaAfsBJGYazBW7njgi1no0T87oTDe7ZZ+bwI0EIvk/t 0SGlZAc5lLF0oEAu050HHxxpaD8HgZm+ZRrFq11iOuy85jJWAhKWak7kB1YASfPUlX vHaAWryOhs2vhfuajkADNatnIECweT149+hK6RRp+QIU2WQxj6ckZVB+5h3aV170hG DHiUFABd+hySA== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [216.154.3.202]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 963B812078F; Sun, 10 May 2020 23:19:02 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <837dxjcijw.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Mon, 11 May 2020 05:27:31 +0300") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/05/10 23:19:05 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN 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:249755 Archived-At: > This is all possible, of course, but I don't (yet) see why it would be > necessary. We survive without this complexity when using JIT > font-lock, and any alternative back-end for the same job should be > able to reuse the same basic architecture. His context is very different from JIT font-lock since it's not synchronous. He basically sends the buffer to some external processs which replies a minute(!) later with some highlighting instructions. Those instructions obviously refer to the buffer as it was a minute ago. Jit-lock works "between buffer updates", so it doesn't have to deal with this problem. Stefan