Re: "Use font-lock-support-mode rather than calling lazy-lock-mode"

[ishikawa <chiaki.ishikawa@ubin.jp>]

Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>     They'd think "Damn, Richard!  What got into you?".
>>     Seriously, I think we're wasting our time here: this problem does not
>>     impact functionality.
> 
>> I am skeptical of these statements.
>> Could you present reasons for them?
> 
> IIRC the "problem" was that Emacs warned the user that lazy-lock is obsolete
> and that she can fix that via font-lock-support-mode.  That's no loss of
> functionality: lazy-lock works just as well as ever, AFAIK.
> 

Hi,

The original reporter

The problem here was that I got a warning about lazy-lock being deprecated and
the code that printed the warning  contained "(sit-for 2)" and
the resulting behavior was not quite friendly since I could not figure out 
initially where lazy-lock was invoked until I traced the code to figure out where.

I am not sure if lazy-lock mode (supplied with 22.0.90)  works without showing 
this warning every now and then (electric-buffer mode certainly was not usable 
due to this warning message obscuring the intermediate output/input all the time.).
Basic functionality works maybe, but it was hardly usable to a testing luser.

Just my observation.

As for NOT putting the information into the info page, I concur given that
there is a NEWS entry and/or other pointers available on-line so that
the package mainteners have ample hints to fix his/her codes.
By the time, the release to the general public occurs, the kind of problems that 
I faced (in relation to somewhat obscure initialize code for VM) would disapper,
hopefully.


Chiaki Ishikawa