From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: mouse-drag-and-drop-region Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 10:49:18 -0500 Message-ID: References: <5A0ABD41.5040402@gmx.at> <874lpwobsa.fsf@gmail.com> <5A0C0765.2040908@gmx.at> <87375fl3z1.fsf@gmail.com> <831skzjo2o.fsf@gnu.org> <87y3n7jj2y.fsf@gmail.com> <83r2syi5h6.fsf@gnu.org> <87r2sx4do3.fsf@gmail.com> <837eupiclf.fsf@gnu.org> <83lgj4hnaa.fsf@gnu.org> <83a7zkggya.fsf@gnu.org> <83h8trfx22.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1511020220 27118 195.159.176.226 (18 Nov 2017 15:50:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 15:50:20 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 18 16:50:15 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eG5Nk-0006Zv-P1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 16:50:12 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50406 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eG5Ns-0005Zm-1c for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 10:50:20 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39735) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eG5N8-0005Zf-Bp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 10:49:35 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eG5N7-0006HX-Mt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 10:49:34 -0500 Original-Received: from pmta31.teksavvy.com ([76.10.157.38]:36813) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eG5N4-0006Cv-0A; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 10:49:30 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A2EpHgBVVhBa/3HQSC1bHAEBAQQBAQoBA?= =?us-ascii?q?YM8gVSJM4R5j0KBfZZyggGFRQKEZ0IVAQEBAQEBAQEBA2gohSABBAF5BQsLDSA?= =?us-ascii?q?HEhQYMYowCKt+IQKKVgEBAQcCJoM0ggeGaYRWgQSFOQWKLohaXo5YoH8ohzGXb?= =?us-ascii?q?DUkgXQ0IQgygy6EfCOLSQEBAQ?= X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A2EpHgBVVhBa/3HQSC1bHAEBAQQBAQoBAYM8gVSJM4R5j0K?= =?us-ascii?q?BfZZyggGFRQKEZ0IVAQEBAQEBAQEBA2gohSABBAF5BQsLDSAHEhQYMYowCKt+I?= =?us-ascii?q?QKKVgEBAQcCJoM0ggeGaYRWgQSFOQWKLohaXo5YoH8ohzGXbDUkgXQ0IQgygy6?= =?us-ascii?q?EfCOLSQEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,415,1505793600"; d="scan'208";a="9295140" Original-Received: from unknown (HELO pastel.home) ([45.72.208.113]) by smtp.teksavvy.com with ESMTP; 18 Nov 2017 10:49:18 -0500 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 4C3E160770; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 10:49:18 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <83h8trfx22.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 18 Nov 2017 17:04:05 +0200") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 76.10.157.38 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:220268 Archived-At: > This model is incomplete. Emacs first tries to reuse (parts of) the > current matrix, if that's possible given the information about what > has changed since the last redisplay cycle. It only generates a new > ("desired") glyph matrix if the attempt to reuse the current one > failed. > In addition, AFAIR there are situations when only small portions of > the desired matrix are generated. When doing this, Emacs must be able > to decide which parts don't need to be regenerated. Right. These are optimizations which would apply identically to the other model, (where the "current matrix" would be the "desired matrix" computed last time, rather than the "combined matrix" computed last time). > If you are thinking about reviewing the existing optimizations and > changing them to account for the new model, including adding some new > optimization methods, then I'm sure it's possible. But it's a large > job, and I cannot promise that the result will be acceptable, > performance-wise, unless very deep changes are done in the control and > logic flow of the current code. Indeed. I'm pretty sure it can be done with good enough performance, but I do not know how much work it would take. Stefan