From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Is there something like `on-display-functions'? Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:02:54 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20100127153733.GD3432@muc.de> <83k4v34f49.fsf@gnu.org> <83fx5r48gd.fsf@gnu.org> <20100128103856.GC2285@muc.de> <20100129131751.GC3272@muc.de> <20100129191737.GE3272@muc.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1264885397 27546 80.91.229.12 (30 Jan 2010 21:03:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:03:17 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 30 22:03:14 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NbKTJ-0003X8-VM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 30 Jan 2010 22:03:14 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55783 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NbKTJ-0000nN-3r for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:03:13 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NbKTC-0000mt-81 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:03:06 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=51061 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NbKT8-0000m8-J3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:03:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NbKT7-0007sY-CL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:03:02 -0500 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:15878 helo=ironport2-out.pppoe.ca) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NbKT4-0007rd-C2; Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:02:58 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhcFAJAtZEtFpaN9/2dsb2JhbACBMtd+hEUEilo X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,375,1262581200"; d="scan'208";a="54990288" Original-Received: from 69-165-163-125.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO ceviche.home) ([69.165.163.125]) by ironport2-out.pppoe.ca with ESMTP; 30 Jan 2010 16:02:55 -0500 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id C959CB44C7; Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:02:54 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20100129191737.GE3272@muc.de> (Alan Mackenzie's message of "Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:17:37 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.91 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:120721 Archived-At: > Is this nothing-to-do-with-ness documented anywhere? In the elisp > manual, jit-lock is found twice, both occurrences in "Other Font Lock > Variables". Without reading the source code in great detail, you'd be > hard pressed to find out that the jit-lock mechanism is operative when > font-lock mode is disabled. Yes, that's inherited from jit-lock's origin as a "font-lock support mode". It deserves to be better documented. >> The docstring doesn't mention font-lock. > It mentions "fontification". Isn't that a synonym for font-lock? Or is > it the part of redisplay that converts characters into glyphs and pixels, > regardless of whether font-lock is enabled? "fontification" usually refers to the act of adding `face' properties (and similar things) to enhance the visual appearance of the text. Font-lock is the canonical package that does fontification, hilit19 was another one. Some major modes do/did it without using font-lock. > jit-lock-register says that FUN is "registered as a fontification > function". I think Somebody (tm) could usefully separate out jit-lock > from font-lock in the doc strings and manual. Agreed. > Just as a matter of interest, how does jit-lock know the END parameter > which it passes to FUN? Or is this just a random value, a few hundred > bytes after BEG? It's a somewhat arbitrary value, computed based on jit-lock-chunk-size. Stefan