From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "John Wiegley" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 15:49:22 -0700 Organization: New Artisans LLC Message-ID: References: <561A19AB.5060001@cumego.com> <87612des3y.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87pp0lrrlo.fsf@mbork.pl> <87oag5rpz6.fsf@mbork.pl> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1444603799 4091 80.91.229.3 (11 Oct 2015 22:49:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 22:49:59 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 12 00:49:55 2015 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 1ZlPRC-0007FK-FG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 00:49:54 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50045 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZlPRB-0007W5-KP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 18:49:53 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60408) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZlPQp-0007VV-8h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 18:49:32 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZlPQk-0004Eb-9M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 18:49:31 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pa0-x22b.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22b]:33952) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZlPQk-0004EF-3Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 18:49:26 -0400 Original-Received: by padhy16 with SMTP id hy16so136309634pad.1 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 15:49:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:date:organization:message-id :references:user-agent:mail-followup-to:mime-version:content-type; bh=bg5zSlIzlnrhtggjKBmzQfG/rcVol0KO8ZsnPk9hP3o=; b=qRe1apgtk4G8FnirXPHm3wfyvoWItcPYEnMgwZbVOmNdHKdlqbXg7x6D39xDsLJftJ 7Oup9Ts0DC3jmvgmajZKj1691d953L/eZt2BYl3sGalsaWrkOPdflkby/Q3/acrn8yGo ycDLowHAHjE7c4PAe17WCcgfnzWTDeRAsNU0g6/6ZA39vS68x1UXCPhiEfftAEjgTUCj o2VtFvPFbPh7CK4sLdzOLHZi/FaJLHTnyuA5VoXL43BbmlKvnUu1jXo+/xFEjlOY8AtF SXasC6UZ0DeElUDwgGkACLBj+q+ny1S8e5Hq6Jty6kbFWH1zzT75wqNbuWoc9Yo9SWEu y8/Q== X-Received: by 10.66.193.162 with SMTP id hp2mr30550360pac.108.1444603765483; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 15:49:25 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from Vulcan.local (76-234-68-79.lightspeed.frokca.sbcglobal.net. [76.234.68.79]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id gd2sm14448822pbb.41.2015.10.11.15.49.24 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 11 Oct 2015 15:49:24 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by Vulcan.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 91CF1F2BC85A; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 15:49:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87oag5rpz6.fsf@mbork.pl> (Marcin Borkowski's message of "Mon, 12 Oct 2015 00:37:49 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (darwin) Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22b 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:191290 Archived-At: >>>>> Marcin Borkowski writes: > I'm not sure whether you were ironic or not, but assuming you were not, > here's my answer: no, I cannot /identify/ them, but sometimes I can > /suspect/ them. More seasoned developers should make the decision, though. > > Sometimes I look up some function or command, and I'm surprised it's defined > in C and not Elisp. I could start making notes about those situations. No, not ironic, just encouraging you. :) > As I said, `self-insert-command' seems a natural candidate. It is probably > almost never called from Elisp code, and I would guess it's similar for C > code. (One exception might be keyboard macros - if yes, this might be a > performance bottleneck.) I wonder, since this command is called so often, what the impact would be in this case. We'd need hard numbers to show that it doesn't affect input latency at all. John