From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Default of jit-lock-stealth-time Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:55:58 +0100 Message-ID: References: <85tzxazb8r.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87ps7x4clj.fsf@pacem.orebokech.com> <85irdpweuq.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <45E2E3AC.6050300@gmx.at> <85fy8tuf8u.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <45E30E7E.7060901@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1172530534 30920 80.91.229.12 (26 Feb 2007 22:55:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 22:55:34 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 26 23:55:27 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HLokg-0007Ka-5L for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:55:26 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HLokg-0006OL-3W for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:55:26 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HLokW-0006OC-3C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:55:16 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HLokV-0006O0-Dx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:55:15 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HLokV-0006Nx-CJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:55:15 -0500 Original-Received: from pfepa.post.tele.dk ([195.41.46.235]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1HLokT-0002nL-2A; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:55:13 -0500 Original-Received: from kfs-l.imdomain.dk.cua.dk (0x503e2644.bynxx19.adsl-dhcp.tele.dk [80.62.38.68]) by pfepa.post.tele.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id F2C1CFAC05B; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:55:08 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <45E30E7E.7060901@gmx.at> (martin rudalics's message of "Mon\, 26 Feb 2007 17\:44\:46 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.94 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:66884 Archived-At: martin rudalics writes: >>>But stealth mode does not guarantee that at all. It is completely >>>irreproducible whether or not some buffer has been completely >>>stealthified. >> >> >> Agree! >> >> I actually think Martin's argument speaks _against_ a non-nil default >> value of jit-lock-stealth-time -- no major mode should ever rely on >> such convoluted behavior. > > Obviously. But we should be prepared to get a few more bug reports when we > set this to nil. That's ok. If those bugs are really there - users will see them even when jit-lock-stealth-time is non-nil. Getting bug reports for repeatable bugs is infinitely better than reports about bugs that "happens from time to time, but I don't know how to reproduce it". It will just be much more difficult to debug them, if the bug is timing dependent, rather than happening consistently. Again -- a very good reason for the default being nil. -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk