From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Feature request : Tab-completion for 'shell-comand' Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:36:01 +0100 Message-ID: <47DE1F61.5000604@gmx.at> References: <87abl8svpl.fsf@jurta.org> <87iqzves3k.fsf@jurta.org> <87zlt6qnu4.fsf@jurta.org> <8763vs7v08.fsf@jurta.org> <87d4pzz56f.fsf@jurta.org> <47D97A36.5050103@gmx.at> <47DA2D77.2070909@gmx.at> <47DAC505.1050008@gmx.at> <47DD2D86.8020900@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1205742962 2619 80.91.229.12 (17 Mar 2008 08:36:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:36:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 17 09:36:31 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JbApa-0001eG-1M for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:36:30 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JbAp0-0004Bo-Dx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 04:35:54 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JbAow-0004BL-9q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 04:35:50 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JbAou-0004Ap-Sl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 04:35:50 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JbAou-0004Al-Po for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 04:35:48 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JbAou-00070l-DR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 04:35:48 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 17 Mar 2008 07:35:46 -0000 Original-Received: from N811P013.adsl.highway.telekom.at (EHLO [62.47.45.77]) [62.47.45.77] by mail.gmx.net (mp011) with SMTP; 17 Mar 2008 08:35:46 +0100 X-Authenticated: #14592706 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18ayaoo2YQa4cL+oyhTs5EfZqhJDxk84oaNJcW6l4 8ITsVXCoPSQFP/ User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-us, en In-Reply-To: X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:92807 Archived-At: >>They're a pain because `remove-overlays' does (1) recenter all overlays, >>(2) construct a list of all overlays in the region, (3) select the >>overlays needed, and (4) delete them. All this for the single purpose >>that overlays overlapping BEG or END get split appropriately. > > > You mean it's not as efficient as it could be? Agreed. > It hasn't bit me yet, tho. Do you have a use case where the speed is > a problem? Removing the old whitespace overlays was devastatingly slow. Richard fixed it by putting an (overlay-recenter (point-max)) somewhere in the code of whitespace.el before the call of `remove-overlays'. But I still don't understand why that fixed the problem and, for example, why the argument `point-max' is any better than say `point-min'. And the nxml author wants to ** Explore whether overlay-recenter can cure overlays performance problems. Is there really anyone using `remove-overlays' who also wants its feature that "Overlays might be moved and/or split."