From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove obsolete fast-lock and lazy-lock libraries Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2020 16:49:10 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20200809164058.GC26635@ACM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="24473"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Alan Mackenzie , Jeff Norden , Emacs developers To: Stefan Kangas Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Aug 09 22:50:00 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 1k4sGW-0006G6-0L for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 09 Aug 2020 22:50:00 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34110 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k4sGU-0001Rp-T8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 09 Aug 2020 16:49:58 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48452) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k4sFt-0000vS-Ab for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Aug 2020 16:49:21 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:19991) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k4sFr-00019w-7L for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Aug 2020 16:49:20 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9DE7D80B35; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 16:49:17 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 139AA806B9; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 16:49:12 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1597006152; bh=MoByZbVklul9whbgMLffULMKYLhF72Mze7V77IGdsP0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=LGzmiPRnvi6mrHei+Lua6RR5W/svwMqGCL9TmGWb5laoXZ5wrKlV4CPPOQdP4wvBf Tdt4R1kmG1Yq+acxRgBe3gftmixuRTn530auoM3p0j2yETa5aE9JCsKVffbyPvMpa/ LZGAHj9Rs5mtve2ujavMQagtPfZyIXTyajLNOV35Q9Q7/2zlDoE+auUz0UOOb/EUoj OVM+xqb4Su9/e7ExCBlFhQ45rDaSWS0yGkDZWZ2thMscGEtvxF9efQLcbI4SfMQ6Dd pmjfoNOYx0aZP5cLsVPRNDGtSSwWz5czRWml0snJ0k3DS+OjraW0JMaE33D+Mcg9Lf 5se/gL7/DD8uQ== Original-Received: from milanesa (unknown [45.72.246.108]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CE67E1202C1; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 16:49:11 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Stefan Kangas's message of "Sun, 9 Aug 2020 22:32:44 +0200") 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 = 2020/08/09 15:53:24 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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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:253563 Archived-At: > Okay, that's a fair point. But if the user has set it to lazy-lock or > fast-lock wouldn't the reason most likely be that it's expected to be > better for normal use? And, if that holds, shouldn't we be a bit > forthcoming by just using the current best, which is jit-lock? > > OTOH, I guess that for any other value it is probably best to signal > an error rather than silently defaulting to nil. > > Still, I don't have any strong feelings either way. I have no reason to believe that there's a non-negligible number of users out there in the wild using fast-lock or lazy-lock, so whether we ignore such settings or signal an error for them probably won't make much difference either way. I guess the nicer way is to ignore the setting but emit a message, if you really care. Stefan