From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: font-lock-maximum-decoration should be 2 by default? Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:13:27 -0700 Message-ID: <28D1904F32094411B543B748956D9F85@us.oracle.com> References: <87wr0x8zxj.fsf@gmail.com> <831uj5bnid.fsf@gnu.org><87obm98trc.fsf@gmail.com><95FA6116C6194DAAA658F916B48C5E23@us.oracle.com><874no12tan.fsf_-_@gmail.com> <83y5ld9seg.fsf@gnu.org><177186CBFE1741FCBBB8F3D2A57ACB00@us.oracle.com><83wr0wadnw.fsf@gnu.org> <877gsv7grw.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1345346032 6401 80.91.229.3 (19 Aug 2012 03:13:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 03:13:52 +0000 (UTC) Cc: spinuvit@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "'Jason Rumney'" , "'Eli Zaretskii'" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Aug 19 05:13:51 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 1T2vxW-0006Qk-LC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 05:13:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42198 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T2vxV-0000S5-DE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 23:13:49 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44162) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T2vxT-0000Rx-Ac for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 23:13:48 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T2vxS-0002rw-B4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 23:13:47 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com ([148.87.113.117]:22764) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T2vxP-0002rc-CN; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 23:13:43 -0400 Original-Received: from ucsinet21.oracle.com (ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id q7J3Df1v016817 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 19 Aug 2012 03:13:41 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt358.oracle.com (acsmt358.oracle.com [141.146.40.158]) by ucsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q7J3Dea2019055 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 19 Aug 2012 03:13:40 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt111.oracle.com (abhmt111.oracle.com [141.146.116.63]) by acsmt358.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id q7J3DeMk016595; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 22:13:40 -0500 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.171.244) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:13:40 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <877gsv7grw.fsf@gnu.org> Thread-Index: Ac19svV+QWBIsX7jTcijsnZ7lgY8wwAA0WsQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Source-IP: ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) X-Received-From: 148.87.113.117 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:152656 Archived-At: > >> > > Interesting. I am curious of reasons for that. > >> > > >> > Performance. You don't gain much by omitting some fontifications > >> > nowadays. The variable was introduced to get snappier redisplay; > >> > since the need for that is no longer valid, the default > >> > was set to t. > >> > >> Do you have any proof of that being _the_ reason it was > >> introduced: just for performance? > > > > No proof, just my faulty memory. > > In this case, not faulty: > > ! (defvar font-lock-maximum-decoration nil ... > ! (defvar font-lock-maximum-decoration t ... > 1996-08-11 Richard Stallman > * Version 19.33 released. > 1997-09-15 Richard Stallman > * Version 20.1 released. > > (I thought there was also a 19.34, but that might be my faulty memory, > or maybe it was on a branch, so doesn't show up in the changelogs). Uh, where do you see ANYTHING there that supports the claim that "the" reason why the variable was _introduced_ in the first place was "to get snappier display"? What you show supports the fact that the default value was changed from nil to t in 1997. Nothing more, AFAICT. The question is whether the variable and its levels exist _only_ to provide "snappier redisplay" (by choosing a lower level). The variable is intended to give users a choice of different amounts of font-lock decoration. A user can want more or less decoration for any number of reasons. In the old days performance was no doubt one of the possible reasons. If performance were the only reason for this variable, then those who want to remove the variable now might have an argument. (And in that case it could even have been removed in 1997.) It is clear to me that there are users, today, who want less fontification in some modes (I've heard from some of them). This variable gives them a way to get that. Yes, a default of `t' hides this possibility from some users, no doubt. And yes, there are too few modes that actually provide different levels. And yes, one could perhaps dream up a better approach than levels. But while waiting for the better approach (conjectured by Stefan long ago), this variable has the merit of providing users some control over the amount of decoration.