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: Default of jit-lock-stealth-time Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:57:38 -0500 Message-ID: References: <85tzxazb8r.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87ps7x4clj.fsf@pacem.orebokech.com> <85irdpweuq.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87ejocik1a.fsf@catnip.gol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1172552293 19397 80.91.229.12 (27 Feb 2007 04:58:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 04:58:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Miles Bader Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 27 05:58:06 2007 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 4.50) id 1HLuPY-00084Y-TI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 05:58:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HLuPY-0007eK-IW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:58:00 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HLuPN-0007bo-HI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:57:49 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HLuPL-0007bc-4I for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:57:48 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HLuPK-0007bZ-TZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:57:46 -0500 Original-Received: from tomts16.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.4] helo=tomts16-srv.bellnexxia.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1HLuPG-0001vx-JN; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:57:42 -0500 Original-Received: from alfajor.home ([74.12.210.227]) by tomts16-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.13 201-253-122-130-113-20050324) with ESMTP id <20070227045739.PBPX1673.tomts16-srv.bellnexxia.net@alfajor.home>; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:57:39 -0500 Original-Received: by alfajor.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id DC6981C14A; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:57:38 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Miles Bader's message of "Tue\, 27 Feb 2007 11\:10\:30 +0900") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.94 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: Solaris 8 (1) 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:66897 Archived-At: > Sure, but there's little incentive to do so, so the rather heavy-handed > way you jumped on Eli seems out of place. Sorry, I guess it sounded louder than I intended. > The implication seemed to be that if he didn't "observe some benefit", > then there likely wasn't any (which obviously isn't true). We're just trying to find people who have observed benefits. It looks like Eli isn't one of them. Maybe there are such people, but I expect they're very rare: I've played a good bit with jit-lock (while working on its code, on syntax-ppss, and on various major mode's font-lock patterns), using a relatively modest machine at the time (about 4 years old, but top-of-the-line when new) running on an Emacs compiled with all known runtime checks. I've seen significant delays with jit-lock under some specific circumstances, and in those circumstances jit-lock-stealth was able to reduce the occurrence of those cases, but it never seemed enough: the remaining cases were still too severe. So in practice I expect every major mode's font-lock rules to be tuned by the author to avoid such circumstances, such that jit-lock is fast enough and jit-lock-stealth never makes a noticeable difference. >> We know fairly well about the downsides and we know they don't affect >> everybody all the time, so this is not the interesting part of >> the discussion. > It serves to put the strident opposition to stealth fontification in > context, I think. Sure. Jit-lock-stealth has been in wide use since Emacs-21.1 (and the years of development before), so it's clear that its bad effects are sufficiently mild. Stefan