From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:16:33 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83o8sf3r7i.fsf@gnu.org> <2E218879-0F24-4A20-B210-263C8D0BEEA4@gmail.com> <838sjh2red.fsf@gnu.org> <83369o3bvb.fsf@gnu.org> <816186eb-baac-f5c7-04df-a3f30780d91d@yandex.ru> <83k1301qq4.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="114941"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: casouri@gmail.com, akrl@sdf.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, Dmitry Gutov To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 31 19:18:49 2020 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 1jJKXJ-000Tmq-2V for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 19:18:49 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42068 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jJKXI-0003en-3Z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:18:48 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48990) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jJKVI-0001IC-FB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:16:45 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jJKVH-000600-8h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:16:44 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:61273) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jJKVF-0005wl-Uz; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:16:42 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E3F9781B90; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:16:39 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1F591805D6; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:16:38 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1585674998; bh=wW0S7h31dsPDrQBusyFaqRDoHgpB6L7OAyaQwFnpttE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Nlwj/nVWBUVat2qe8BvCNvNmDzZBw+VELUvAaP38YEj6zEBonON0t9wSxpEK/RMg8 NeQYrGtmDL+WSBDKYev/yEKlStfe+4OzrmbcBkhweerXqCmIN2L04DH+SNP6oc+RYq rRQwu76qQKvH3zWnTBM7z1Ro9XgssxfMQP04tL/gz+hqsS4Gb7F2NQ2FOiZPXd+/gB JAIT65kRRA8WZva0liUYLeZcCPSZmxCwm+EMwVHwhClGiBBv/jSwjRe2pQQM92G6na cv/FKAlTB9RmgBRtTWLWN9NZpZjk02Gp/NnWKKwQOhRROCFdd6SMmaqHBWiqsip8hN +uanAnPNK3dwg== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [104.247.241.114]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 550E21208E7; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:16:36 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83k1301qq4.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Tue, 31 Mar 2020 18:36:19 +0300") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 132.204.25.50 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:246126 Archived-At: > It should be obvious that sending a buffer as a single string is less > efficient than letting tree-sitter access buffer text directly. We > just need an appropriate API for that (maybe there is one already, I > didn't take a look at their sources since January). My benchmark say that `buffer-string` takes about 1/3 the time of `parse-partial-sexp`, so letting tree-sitter access our buffer text directly is unlikely to give more than a 30% speed up. It doesn't mean it wouldn't be a desirable optimization, but it does mean that it likely won't make a large difference as to whether it's "fast enough". Stefan