From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Release plans Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:53:26 +0200 Message-ID: <48B861C6.10500@gmail.com> References: <87bpzqqk7b.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20080818210927.GD2615@muc.de> <87wsidnxqp.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87ljytkwpk.fsf@rattlesnake.com> <878wusz0v9.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87vdxp27z6.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87prnxe5hc.fsf@rattlesnake.com> <873aktck5d.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87k5e5dsvq.fsf@rattlesnake.com> <48B44802.1080302@emf.net> <87ej4atczj.fsf@gmail.com> <48B78A75.8080103@emf.net> <803akoyrqy.fsf@tiny.isode.net> <48B7F59B.5060705@gmail.com> <48B84CA8.7080908@emf.net> <87zlmvd1xl.fsf@ambire.localdomain> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1220043285 29593 80.91.229.12 (29 Aug 2008 20:54:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:54:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Thomas Lord , Thien-Thi Nguyen , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Aug 29 22:55:39 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 1KZB01-0002b6-Ak for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:55:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53083 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KZAz2-0007zv-TN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:54:16 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KZAyh-0007sq-R5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:53:55 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KZAyf-0007rt-Ul for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:53:55 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36335 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KZAyf-0007rl-OP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:53:53 -0400 Original-Received: from ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.213]:50950) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KZAyf-00021b-4O for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:53:53 -0400 Original-Received: from c83-254-151-87.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.151.87]:64175 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1KZAyZ-0006Fv-9T; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:53:48 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080829-0, 2008-08-29), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Originating-IP: 83.254.151.87 X-ACL-Warn: Too high rate of unknown addresses received from you X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1KZAyZ-0006Fv-9T. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net 1KZAyZ-0006Fv-9T 6628399fbf8472c95478f85753d0def0 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6? (barebone, rare!) 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:103207 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier wrote: >> it would be very nice, performance-wise and semantics-wise, to >> be able to address the database from lisp directly rather than >> going through the serialization bottleneck to a sub-process. > >> I think you've got it backwards; in any system involving Emacs (of >> the current design), the serialization bottleneck is Emacs `eval'. > > I'm not sure I understand what you mean. In the case of something like > Semantic, if parsing in Elisp is too expensive or if you want to use > some existing C code to do the parsing, the bottleneck you'll have to > handle is that the external process can't directly access the buffer's > text, and it can be very costly to pass that text to the subprocess and > then process the returned value (which may look like a list of text > properties to add to various parts of the text). > > A DLL could be significantly more efficient. The difference can be as > large as "on-the-fly" vs "batch". It looks to me like the buffer string routines Thomas is working on could perhaps make that easier to implement (in the DLL case of course). But I guess you have thought much more about that, Thomas?