From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: jit-lock-antiblink-grace Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2019 10:18:34 +0000 Message-ID: <20191013101834.GA10125@ACM> References: <834l0enw8c.fsf@gnu.org> <83y2xqm6m4.fsf@gnu.org> <20191012161400.GB9818@ACM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="192453"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_T=E1vora?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 13 12:19:45 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iJayU-000nt6-LE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 12:19:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38594 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iJayS-00080u-Rg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 06:19:40 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58363) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iJaxW-00080f-W0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 06:18:44 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iJaxU-0004yC-7V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 06:18:42 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:51033 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iJaxS-0004vt-DX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 06:18:40 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 65299 invoked by uid 3782); 13 Oct 2019 10:18:37 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p2E5D5B34.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [46.93.91.52]) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 12:18:34 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 10196 invoked by uid 1000); 13 Oct 2019 10:18:34 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: 193.149.48.1 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:240953 Archived-At: Hello, Jaćo. On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 23:26:00 +0100, Joćo Tįvora wrote: > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 5:14 PM Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > > Regarding slowdown, we have to check by how much. Regarding the > > > pertinence of the modificaiton, there are mode-specific modifications > > > with (IMO much worse) backward-incompatible behaviour being made to > > > modes like to c-mode to circumvent precisely this problem. > > No. > You're right. I never really understood _your_ motivation for it. Of > all its serious drawbacks, the only positive effect that others -- > indeed not you -- effectively pointed out is that it partially solves > the "flashing" or "blinking" problem for users who don't use > electric-pair-mode, smartparens, or similar solutions. In contrast, > your explanations for that particular feature, which conflated syntax > and font-lock considerations, were always nonsensical to me. With all > sincerity, whenever I tried to follow your logic I came to a insoluble > contradiction. Alas, I'm afraid my ability to follow the same arguments > hasn't evolved much in the meantime, and so I very much wish not to > rehash that discussion. > Anyway, after recognizing the legitimacy of the aforementioned > "flashing" problem (which, again, I avoid with electric-pair-mode), I > took up a stuggestion by Stefan for an alternative way to solve that > problem. So that there would be less justification to the > behaviour-breaking changes to CC Mode, or at least so that other mode > authors aren't encouraged to replicate your approach, that I personally > consider harmful. Why do you have to be so hostile? You start by snipping my entire post, bar one word, so that people can't see my point of view that you're supposedly replying to. Then you generally disparage my work, vaguely and unspecifically. If there's something about CC Mode workings you don't like, say what it is. Then I can see if the mode can be further improved. The one specific feature you referred to in the past, namely syntactic matching of disjoint string quotes (i.e. on different lines), I implemented back in July. Please don't post more posts like the one I'm replying to. They're not helpful, and spoil the generally positive and cooperative tone on this list. > Joćo -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).