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: emacs rendering comparisson between emacs23 and emacs26.3 Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 11:16:29 -0400 Message-ID: References: <671b5b41-663d-5ab9-f022-dc6c5ce54dd0@yandex.ru> <83r1x1sqkx.fsf@gnu.org> <83lfn9s63n.fsf@gnu.org> <83h7xvqsgc.fsf@gnu.org> <90749329-ccb1-f96e-29c0-b4ecbb81d1d4@yandex.ru> <837dyrqews.fsf@gnu.org> <20200407201018.GD4009@ACM> <835zeaqz8q.fsf@gnu.org> <20200408070215.GA4106@ACM> <83wo6qpi5s.fsf@gnu.org> <83v9mapgrg.fsf@gnu.org> <83eesyow3n.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="127934"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, rudalics@gmx.at, rrandresf@gmail.com, dgutov@yandex.ru, acm@muc.de To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 08 17:17:56 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 1jMCSh-000XAs-CQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 17:17:55 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37370 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jMCSg-0006sF-Ek for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 11:17:54 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58784) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jMCRn-0006KX-AB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 11:17:00 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jMCRl-0001D6-LV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 11:16:58 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:19916) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jMCRk-0001Bz-8e; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 11:16:56 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 43AEB44FDB0; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 11:16:55 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CB18F44FD16; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 11:16:53 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1586359013; bh=6dsMveEaiPb3peqenR15p+8g2ts5aCsnb9uvZG3Jsw4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=iAYfLR+WJr0MAdmOQlRltbTUrrUho8BqUw0xsNzY8AQnZy+6iwMBPi8u6dh9opJe+ cK4YSU1Nz0pUSeHtOzCA+Qd0AkGkQMr5pfZGdIv441Kld1+VYMYjmK8VjqtcFGgts6 PGR7iSS4tDASyWwP0W6uPN1pacZRtOf/o9f81zwwmmcCA+0uuu78QsSGDkEEy/da3z NAYJV6MfqA+8X339eGY6BYAoPpzxkvKy2S03PBlRbqqNj0ZTN6NEnYksN+Ix8kbSvW +C54IkndCqYcK6+z0eslj9Yvglool/cUPDcu+EJ1F6rHWO48UgDmrbE1r5Srx6hvr/ SfRjLAlXFa3Ug== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [104.247.241.114]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AED24120515; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 11:16:38 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83eesyow3n.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 08 Apr 2020 18:06:36 +0300") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 132.204.25.50 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:246677 Archived-At: > This is in jit-lock-register, which is not called from jit-lock.el. > Does this mean that non-nil, non-t value of jit-lock-contextually is > like nil, unless the major mode calls jit-lock-register with its 2nd > argument non-nil? Yes. > And if so, why does the doc string mention font-lock-keywords-only and > doesn't mention jit-lock-register? I think that's because that's written for the end-user rather than for the programmer: the end user doesn't know `jit-lock-register`, but it may know `font-lock-keywords-only`. But maybe it's really just an artifact of history (originally, jit-lock and font-lock were more tightly linked). > They seem to be at least theoretically independent? If not, where's > their connection? `font-lock-keywords-only` ends up passed by font-lock as 2nd arg to `jit-lock-register`. Stefan PS: BTW, maybe `jit-lock-contextually` should really be part of font-lock rather than jit-lock.