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 19:43:47 -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 1172537052 17421 80.91.229.12 (27 Feb 2007 00:44:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 00:44:12 +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 01:44:05 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 1HLqRn-0005Hv-Jn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 01:44:03 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HLqRn-0003sJ-HN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:44:03 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HLqRc-0003sC-M3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:43:52 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HLqRb-0003s0-8C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:43:51 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HLqRb-0003rx-2B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:43:51 -0500 Original-Received: from tomts40.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.97] helo=tomts40-srv.bellnexxia.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1HLqRZ-0001Po-4u; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:43:49 -0500 Original-Received: from pastel.home ([74.12.210.227]) by tomts40-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.13 201-253-122-130-113-20050324) with ESMTP id <20070227004348.QKAV1624.tomts40-srv.bellnexxia.net@pastel.home>; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:43:48 -0500 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id EDF3C810C; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:43:47 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87ejocik1a.fsf@catnip.gol.com> (Miles Bader's message of "Tue\, 27 Feb 2007 08\:19\:45 +0900") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.93 (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:66888 Archived-At: >> This doesn't answer the question: have you *observed* *benefits*? > That's a rather silly question though, given that the whole purpose of > stealth fontification is to make fontification of large source files > more "seamless" -- i.e., unobservable... Stealth fontification is not supposed to be unobservable. Instead it's supposed to make less observable the fact that fontification is done lazily. So to observe that stealth fontification provides you with some benefit, you have to turn it off and see if jit-lock behaves worse. > I've never changed the default, and never noticed any delay or adverse > effects; occasionally it causes my system to not be idle when I thought > it should be idle (why should I care though?). 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. Stefan