From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Bug #25608 and the comment-cache branch Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 21:51:54 +0000 Message-ID: <20170202215154.GB2505@acm> References: <20170202202418.GA2505@acm> <83lgtouxpf.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1486072391 6221 195.159.176.226 (2 Feb 2017 21:53:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 21:53:11 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 02 22:53:07 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cZPJT-0001US-L1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2017 22:53:07 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59147 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cZPJZ-0002Fl-3Q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2017 16:53:13 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55780) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cZPIh-0002En-26 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2017 16:52:20 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cZPIc-0001xt-8C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2017 16:52:19 -0500 Original-Received: from ocolin.muc.de ([193.149.48.4]:10979 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cZPIc-0001xf-2G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2017 16:52:14 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 91319 invoked by uid 3782); 2 Feb 2017 21:52:12 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p548C71DF.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.140.113.223]) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Feb 2017 22:52:11 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 19565 invoked by uid 1000); 2 Feb 2017 21:51:54 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83lgtouxpf.fsf@gnu.org> X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.12 (Macallan) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: FreeBSD 9.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 193.149.48.4 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:211897 Archived-At: Hello, Eli. On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 22:47:24 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 20:24:18 +0000 > > From: Alan Mackenzie > > I would like to merge comment-cache into master, finally fixing this bug > > once and for all. What do you say, Eli? > I say there's too much resistance to doing that from people whose > opinions I respect and trust. Each time this issue comes up, I see > that resistance being expressed again. Primarily from Stefan. The issue was discussed just a few weeks ago, and the resistance expressed was philosophical rather than practical: for example, it would be nice if the solution was less complicated, or it would be nice if it also cached the rest of the syntax mechanism. That criticism did not identify concrete difficulties which comment-cache might cause. (I do not deny there might be such difficulties, but they can surely be fixed, whatever they turn out to be.) There was no argument with comment-cache's algorithms, no non-vague suggestions as to how they might be improved. In fact the only technical part of the discussion concerned comment-cache's speed. The identified resistance was expressed in a form which didn't give me feedback as to how to make improvements. > I hope it's possible to find some kind of compromise or a different > solution that leaves people less unhappy. Compromise with what? There is no alternative solution on the table at the moment. I would really love to understand what, in concrete terms, the objections to comment-cache are. And in the meantime, it's me that has to keep fielding all these paren in column zero bugs, and some of them (like Paul's bug from last March) require strenuous debugging. It's me that has to keep apologising for this deficiency in Emacs to those raising the bugs. None of this is fun. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).