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: Unfreezing the display during auto-repeated scrolling. Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 20:22:01 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83oat59ucc.fsf@gnu.org> <20141021183807.GD3035@acm.acm> <20141026124333.GA4397@acm.acm> <83h9yq4w5g.fsf@gnu.org> <20141026200313.GE4397@acm.acm> <20141026221530.GF4397@acm.acm> <8361f6420v.fsf@gnu.org> <20141027100526.GB2771@acm.acm> <83zjch31dh.fsf@gnu.org> <20141027224610.GE2771@acm.acm> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1414455738 18725 80.91.229.3 (28 Oct 2014 00:22:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:22:18 +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 Tue Oct 28 01:22:11 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XiuY5-0006fY-1O for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 01:22:09 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36504 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XiuY4-0006ei-EI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 20:22:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51049) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XiuY0-0006ec-R6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 20:22:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XiuXz-00047D-V9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 20:22:04 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:42740) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XiuXy-00046d-B6; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 20:22:02 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Au4MAOatTlRFpY87/2dsb2JhbABcgw6DYoZ+y1MEAgKBHBcBAXyEAwEBAwFWIwULCw4mEhQYDSSISwnLcgEBAQcCAR+RCAeESwWyIIFvhBQhgnoBAQE X-IPAS-Result: Au4MAOatTlRFpY87/2dsb2JhbABcgw6DYoZ+y1MEAgKBHBcBAXyEAwEBAwFWIwULCw4mEhQYDSSISwnLcgEBAQcCAR+RCAeESwWyIIFvhBQhgnoBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,797,1406606400"; d="scan'208";a="95371387" Original-Received: from 69-165-143-59.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([69.165.143.59]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 27 Oct 2014 20:22:01 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 8C7F17CF7; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 20:22:01 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20141027224610.GE2771@acm.acm> (Alan Mackenzie's message of "Mon, 27 Oct 2014 22:46:10 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.181 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:175913 Archived-At: > Yes, I do. However, I can't persuade myself that this is anything but a > special case. Do people actually use mixtures of faces where the font > isn't the same as the default's? What for? FWIW, I do, because I prefer the "unholy mix of fonts" than the "angry fruit salad". More specifically, I like my font-lock "colors" to go only from grey to black, and then use bold/italics/serif/proportional features to make further distinctions. This said, I try to keep those fonts of the same pixel height (tho I sometimes fail, as witnessed by one of my bug reports). But even discounting these weirdos, there are also cases such as latex-mode's use of font-lock to make some parts of the text appear in super/subscript, or other uses that might make section titles larger. I'm not convinced such minor inconsistencies in "pagedown+pageup" are a serious problem, tho. Especially if it only happens after the user explicitly said he was willing to sacrifice a bit of something in exchange for more responsive scrolling. Stefan