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: [RFC, experimental] save_{excursion,restriction} Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 05:14:39 -0400 Message-ID: References: <500D84B6.50303@yandex.ru> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1343121305 31618 80.91.229.3 (24 Jul 2012 09:15:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 09:15:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs development discussions To: Ivan Andrus Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jul 24 11:15:02 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1StbCn-0001Q6-Oe for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:15:01 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57598 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1StbCm-0007li-Q2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 05:15:00 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:39135) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1StbCf-0007lF-ET for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 05:14:58 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1StbCZ-00089r-Ob for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 05:14:53 -0400 Original-Received: from chene.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.20]:39149) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1StbCZ-00089n-Kp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 05:14:47 -0400 Original-Received: from fmsmemgm.homelinux.net (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by chene.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id q6O9EfRG023499; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 05:14:42 -0400 Original-Received: by fmsmemgm.homelinux.net (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 88D80AE3BA; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 05:14:40 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Ivan Andrus's message of "Tue, 24 Jul 2012 08:31:14 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV4288=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.2.0.9309 : core <4288> : streams <789716> : uri <1173368> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 132.204.246.20 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:151851 Archived-At: > Now I'm curious. Why should save-restriction be rare? I mean "dynamically rare". I.e. I don't expect it to happen very often to change the restriction in the inner loops. > Would it be better to use markers in this case? In my experience, if markers can be used instead, then yes I do recommend markers. They have much fewer interactions with other things. Stefan