From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Overlay tree. Stuck again Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:54:41 +0200 Message-ID: <8360ljcbfi.fsf@gnu.org> References: <874m14rnl7.fsf@fastmail.com> <83eg07cr91.fsf@gnu.org> <87ziivqilc.fsf@fastmail.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1484315727 21745 195.159.176.226 (13 Jan 2017 13:55:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 13:55:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Joakim Jalap Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 13 14:55:22 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1cS2Jn-0003lY-QU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 14:54:59 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41348 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cS2Js-0002WI-Bu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 08:55:04 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48876) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cS2JY-0002NR-E6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 08:54:45 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cS2JU-0007FD-B6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 08:54:44 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:38456) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cS2JU-0007F9-7h; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 08:54:40 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3384 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1cS2JT-0004Wt-9u; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 08:54:40 -0500 In-reply-to: <87ziivqilc.fsf@fastmail.com> (message from Joakim Jalap on Fri, 13 Jan 2017 12:56:15 +0100) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:211248 Archived-At: > From: Joakim Jalap > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 12:56:15 +0100 > > > This might be a silly idea, but did you try removing them from the > > tree, and then re-adding them? (I assume that adding a node will > > produce an ordered tree.) > > Yes, that is the "big hammer" approach :) I hae thought about it, but I > think the problem is that it will be too expensive. I suggest to implement it and time it. You might be surprised. Even if you are right, and it is indeed too expensive, you will at the very least have a base-line performance figure against which you could compare the alternative solutions. > However, I just had another idea about how to do this (about the 43rd I > guess), so I will try that and report back in a few weeks :) Thanks.