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: master 2399541: Remove font-lock toggle from font-lock-update Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 18:07:02 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20210324143048.23515.75257@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20210324143050.40C6E20D10@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <8786a8e8fa731c1bd1ef@heytings.org> <87h7l0blrc.fsf@gnus.org> <87czvobksy.fsf@gnus.org> <87r1k4a1c0.fsf@gnus.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="34053"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Gregory Heytings , "Paul W. Rankin" , "Paul W. Rankin via Emacs development discussions." To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 24 23:08:03 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 1lPBfW-0008jF-Ta for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 23:08:02 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60824 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lPBfV-0002Wv-TK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 18:08:01 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37402) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lPBee-0001jb-Ng for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 18:07:08 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:50737) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lPBec-0005Et-7E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 18:07:07 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CDB8B100241; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 18:07:04 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7A27A100216; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 18:07:03 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1616623623; bh=XNBTTeff/E1XsPpDZhsXr/K3efTOhXOI+trfwnF/Jos=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=K8zmdi4UD3Gjb0DSfq4Qg++LP1YKrR3ZpOUu+t4D1Tp11fTrfVY137riYUcZtrW8E TpltORODiLZL9dYL+vuwtlJlMT0NFLswqRNRaK+AijLcG7T0IdY/e/fksiQqOjjw83 vd/P6+hnvvqVJ73USsyG5rAis4vy3ldjV348hcJHF0k7UOxwyPqZuNkMktuxXeUZvM UeU+uCWRsiiQEjPPWbYDK7lI8Vh+y0sbPxvbtOIcb0hdTDM2Lth73bVnS5YHJxI82s FP1AVx3AlfQ7w1nwXj9i0YwbxLI0gftbpdpBaxPgNujovaRfmFSCEB0NtXf/aHRA7t P8SaStnFWJhtA== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [216.154.43.249]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4304612021C; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 18:07:03 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87r1k4a1c0.fsf@gnus.org> (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of "Wed, 24 Mar 2021 18:49:51 +0100") 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:266988 Archived-At: Lars Ingebrigtsen [2021-03-24 18:49:51] wrote: > "Paul W. Rankin" via "Emacs development discussions." > writes: >> No worries. I thought of pushing a change as the nicer alternative to >> a revert. To be blunt, the code ought to be reverted (for the reasons >> already stated). > It's clear that this is your opinion, but you don't seem to have > convinced the other people participating in this discussion. FWIW, I'm not sure if `font-lock-update` (ether it's Paul's or the other) is really better than the old `font-lock-fontify-block`. I think they all suffer from being fundamentally "defined by their implementation" making it hard to evolve when some change is made to the font-lock machinery. I'd much prefer a longer `font-lock-fontify-diwm` which tries to reproduce more or less the same behavior as your favorite, but by explicitly testing the different circumstances you care about. Stefan