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: font-lock-fontify-block Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 12:52:27 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87a6sbg41o.fsf@gnus.org> <87lfatirk1.fsf@gnus.org> <83blbpmy2x.fsf@gnu.org> <837dmdmw60.fsf@gnu.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="32951"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 11 18:56:16 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 1lKPXk-0008ST-EF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 18:56:16 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45690 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lKPXj-0004PF-Dl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 12:56:15 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44648) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lKPUD-0001kr-GY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 12:52:37 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:30455) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lKPUA-0003YX-Sm; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 12:52:36 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1DEF180B6D; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 12:52:30 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 953A0801E9; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 12:52:28 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1615485148; bh=jPvZMe8hteGFvO3IbC3pXcbRfBkV8LHQd90TH+QVGD0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=nzoOBZI0XrGBy4nYB9LIKYLVdP7dd6oPmplYzOznV8k8Jia7gml9Jt9y9V9OgYFHY vKly74wHzlggB8QoGr3NRut1/WhJ1x+S2fzJ2TUfbnRaBs7rFFpo5C2hhyVuENOJ6e cLelFzU/PMNpnn9WAe1c+Vg9/+HSNZ1oRJ0DzQxbpRBzWOybUpzNTfXtb0CI5M6dS/ 5tJ00tlf9lqZLOIsDBjH4ANOfPiAuIFSr3Ns+ML47esXy0IYMPbWLHYzjz7TRwWIv6 Kag7VfMuI1e70Z0X+FkOkMIUPB2zt63ueXasmHuu/YKIJ9uImu6tRX2TmQ5Z6CAmba ZWYYG09dbI18A== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [216.154.43.249]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 664B1120278; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 12:52:28 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <837dmdmw60.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 11 Mar 2021 19:34:31 +0200") 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:266344 Archived-At: >> > IMO, font-lock-fontify-block should have a keybinding. IME, it's too >> > important to be left without one. >> >> Wow, I didn't expect that. I was instead about to ask for details about >> the mentions of `font-lock-fontify-block' since I view it as a command >> which "should" be a no-op (barring bugs, obviously). >> >> I'd be quite interested to know more about those existing use cases (they >> may point to other misgivings of mine, as well). > > When I edit code, I sometimes see it mis-fontified when I'm half-way > through editing a syntactic construct. Unlike some others, I don't > expect font-lock to do a 110% perfect job in every situation, and > prefer a casual M-o M-o to having font-lock definition for a mode > perfected to a point where it becomes unbearably sluggish. OK, so your use case is when font-lock is already enabled. Do you have some general idea of what are the most common reasons for the temporary mis-fontification? AFAIK usually misfontifications aren't temporary unless they're linked to some multiline element, most commonly an unclosed string or comment and those should get fixed automatically after a short delay. So is it the case that the cases where you needed `M-o M-o` would fix themselves after a short delay anyway (I'm OK with keeping such a command for the case you don't want to wait, I'm just trying to understand what it is that `M-o M-o` corrects). Can you think of other cases where `M-o M-o` improved the fontification? Would you be OK with the idea of deprecating the use of `font-lock-fontify-block' for the specific case where font-lock is not enabled? Also, I suspect that for your use case, we could have a general "refresh" command, which just calls `font-lock-flush`, which would not depend on the ill-defined notion of "block" (and wouldn't mess with the mark). Stefan