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: master 2399541: Remove font-lock toggle from font-lock-update Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 11:47:46 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20210324143048.23515.75257@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20210324143050.40C6E20D10@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <87lfacbmgt.fsf@gnus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="16142"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: "Paul W. Rankin" , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 24 16:49:03 2021 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 1lP5kj-0003zH-5v for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 16:49:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60186 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lP5ki-0006w9-4i for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 11:49:00 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50072) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lP5jd-0006Tw-Rr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 11:47:53 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:47510) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lP5ja-0002nL-Hy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 11:47:53 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4CD6E10022F; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 11:47:49 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E45AD10006B; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 11:47:47 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1616600867; bh=NlweEkmJXb5ThutHQnxdjIM4eWMyZAXOKeyUteNtq4E=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=IrEdWDIuoe9Zj049XpZNredOhB7jv3l3rDVRkC4cwRQ4NRzr/S78ERIusSo0PMv4s ERn5jYhOrlWWeNIYnm1gIj22a/CpnYpfIqTcwHbBliSCu69376lur5u8XPgF/pWwUi q4333638yQmjGs/JLlPmt4PTx/SENCw9Ija98MEVHhcTWAUt5b8faGs2EvqQxqh83J TVTdnvE7j2Hz/4YEwlXaiskeIXfwVqKxMayDTeEu8BcsFLen0jR9ko010iU2sJbK6j 8zV6mkaDIGOtYs16tYMt2yC9E340M4gihJZw0A96xruH1JwbB2SV0k/c6iSniphc+B l0LNm7iWGgiYA== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [216.154.43.249]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B45C81204AD; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 11:47:47 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87lfacbmgt.fsf@gnus.org> (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of "Wed, 24 Mar 2021 16:28:02 +0100") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca 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 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:266967 Archived-At: Lars Ingebrigtsen [2021-03-24 16:28:02] wrote: > Stefan Monnier writes: >> I don't see which part of the code corresponds to "the accessible >> portion of". > Isn't that the preferred euphemism for "the entire buffer, or if it's > narrowed, then that bit?" Oh, I think you're right. So the problem is not just in the code but also in the description, because I don't think this description is appropriate for something which is intended to replace the `f-l-fontify-block` command (tho we can make it work fast in the usual case where jit-lock is in use: use call `f-l-flush` instead of `f-l-fontify-region`). Stefan