From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 17:28:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2e92a7f8-6622-454b-b344-0a1d918442d5@default> References: <83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2euehyc.fsf@gnu.org> <1a485a01-87cd-db03-4a0b-2e9033754c46@yandex.ru> <87oa45on4j.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1472862628 32203 195.159.176.226 (3 Sep 2016 00:30:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 00:30:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 24353@debbugs.gnu.org, Dmitry Gutov To: npostavs@users.sourceforge.net Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 03 02:30:21 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@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 1bfyqe-0006wv-2t for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 02:30:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44486 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bfyqb-00008Z-Ri for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 20:30:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54493) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bfyqW-000073-26 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 20:30:09 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bfyqR-0004rr-1t for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 20:30:07 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:50405) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bfyqQ-0004rl-Ut for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 20:30:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bfyqQ-0005z7-MF for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 20:30:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Drew Adams Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2016 00:30:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 24353 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: wontfix notabug Original-Received: via spool by 24353-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B24353.147286255022914 (code B ref 24353); Sat, 03 Sep 2016 00:30:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 24353) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Sep 2016 00:29:10 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48117 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bfypZ-0005xW-Tn for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 20:29:10 -0400 Original-Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:38136) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bfypY-0005xK-H2 for 24353@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 20:29:08 -0400 Original-Received: from userv0021.oracle.com (userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id u830T1Mx013180 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 3 Sep 2016 00:29:02 GMT Original-Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by userv0021.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u830T1bI008019 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 3 Sep 2016 00:29:01 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0010.oracle.com (abhmp0010.oracle.com [141.146.116.16]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u830StmC014547; Sat, 3 Sep 2016 00:29:00 GMT In-Reply-To: <87oa45on4j.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9 (901082) [OL 12.0.6753.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:122874 Archived-At: > > The right way to _encourage_ programmers to use it is to > > tell them precisely that: "Using LIMIT is recommended - it > > typically results in faster code." > > > > Or "strongly recommended". Or "You're nuts if you omit LIMIT!" > > Or whatever other positive or negative encouragement you think > > might be most effective and appropriate. > > > > Telling them nothing about this and, instead, just showing a > > false signature, does NOT help them. >=20 > So something like this: >=20 > diff --git i/lisp/subr.el w/lisp/subr.el > index e9e19d3..4d1267a 100644 > --- i/lisp/subr.el > +++ w/lisp/subr.el > @@ -3533,7 +3533,10 @@ looking-back > LIMIT. >=20 > As a general recommendation, try to avoid using `looking-back' > -wherever possible, since it is slow." > +wherever possible, since it is slow. > + > +For backwards compatibility LIMIT may be omitted, but this usage > +is deprecated." > (declare > (advertised-calling-convention (regexp limit &optional greedy) > "25.1")) > (let ((start (point)) Dunno. Is it deprecated? If so, that presumably means that at some point it is likely to be desupported (impossible to omit LIMIT). Anyway, I've said everything I think I think about this doc. What you do now, if anything, depends on the effect sought. > > 2. We removed this sentence, which was the only suggestion > > related to performance: > > "As a general recommendation, try to avoid using > > `looking-back' wherever possible, since it is slow." >=20 > Not sure which version you're looking at, but that sentence is still > present on both emacs-25 and master branches. Sorry, my bad. It is present. It was hiding below a 1/2-frame window view, and I thought the whole buffer was shown. Darn MS Windows scroll bars - they're there whether there is content to scroll or not.