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: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 18:19:30 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20200810110458.GA4294@ACM> <20200810172509.GB4294@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="23547"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , stefankangas@gmail.com, Jeff Norden , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 11 00:20:24 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 1k5G9Y-00060y-Ez for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 00:20:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57036 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k5G9X-00053w-7M for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 18:20:23 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50702) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k5G8n-0004bq-Qp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 18:19:37 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:41854) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k5G8l-00057h-1b; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 18:19:36 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7434C1004B6; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 18:19:33 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C192A10032F; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 18:19:31 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1597097971; bh=buyjrhF2XISTcuoosT5d3ugfyARKbdmu8gN7a7blD8I=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=T9hMsllyFfMU4Yd1CVIw88I6wS7tK3CxU+W2W1n0e1db1qbcjuxF7/ZuE1IndCoH3 lU7w4J6vMb43504G8VSXvPnwddFgWTDueIycDIWeXbSqExJpbvQu1w+m7cuo/8x83g YYhrawOkpMgGaIWj75kuztrCmGJ7cCzIWFvMrGI1lUugLzP12+Rt9UZASicQR8mNIS oo1PBOhUwEQW3hxaHtaaJ6/8z4zJpTl0VU0j0Uh5I9umlbdbJehWoHLLtQexyrYRCA lHPQg/W5ns3Dd6ZF0MDCqz46Ly1mvSAYTcg4880ItLWo0awywoG/h9yBCWZULHLHhC eioVoglJila9g== Original-Received: from milanesa (unknown [45.72.246.108]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 84688120255; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 18:19:31 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20200810172509.GB4294@ACM> (Alan Mackenzie's message of "Mon, 10 Aug 2020 17:25:09 +0000") 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 = 2020/08/10 18:19:33 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:253605 Archived-At: >> > At the moment, sensible normal values are nil and jit-lock-mode. >> > Also sensible would be, for example, jit-lock-debug-mode, when a >> > user wants to compare standard jit with her own enhanced version. >> > It is not inconceivable that somebody might write something entirely >> > new to supersede jit-lock. Why do you want to make these things >> > more difficult to do? > So the question remains: why do you want to make these more advanced > forms of debugging more difficult? I'm sorry, but you lost me: what "more advanced forms of debugging"? And in which way would my suggestion make it more difficult: in order to add a new possible value to `font-lock-support-mode` you'd have to modify `font-lock.el` or use advice anyway, which you can do just as well without `font-lock-support-mode`. > Your "... help both discoverability and make it easier to use ..." > could be summed up as dumbing down. Great joke. > Surely it would be possible to leave font-lock-support-mode with its > current power, while adding on these other things, too? What power are you talking about? Stefan