From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: emacs rendering comparisson between emacs23 and emacs26.3 Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 18:36:33 +0300 Message-ID: <83a73moupq.fsf@gnu.org> References: <671b5b41-663d-5ab9-f022-dc6c5ce54dd0@yandex.ru> <83r1x1sqkx.fsf@gnu.org> <83lfn9s63n.fsf@gnu.org> <83h7xvqsgc.fsf@gnu.org> <90749329-ccb1-f96e-29c0-b4ecbb81d1d4@yandex.ru> <837dyrqews.fsf@gnu.org> <20200407201018.GD4009@ACM> <835zeaqz8q.fsf@gnu.org> <20200408070215.GA4106@ACM> <83wo6qpi5s.fsf@gnu.org> <83v9mapgrg.fsf@gnu.org> <83eesyow3n.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="87588"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, rudalics@gmx.at, rrandresf@gmail.com, dgutov@yandex.ru, acm@muc.de To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 08 17:37:47 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jMClu-000MeW-2s for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 17:37:46 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37720 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jMClt-0005ou-4n for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 11:37:45 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34400) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jMCl4-0004y9-1D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 11:36:55 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:56794) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jMCl2-0003Gj-SA; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 11:36:52 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2733 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jMCkl-0004Uy-NS; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 11:36:37 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Stefan Monnier on Wed, 08 Apr 2020 11:16:29 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:246680 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: acm@muc.de, rudalics@gmx.at, rrandresf@gmail.com, > emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, dgutov@yandex.ru > Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 11:16:29 -0400 > > > This is in jit-lock-register, which is not called from jit-lock.el. > > Does this mean that non-nil, non-t value of jit-lock-contextually is > > like nil, unless the major mode calls jit-lock-register with its 2nd > > argument non-nil? > > Yes. > > > And if so, why does the doc string mention font-lock-keywords-only and > > doesn't mention jit-lock-register? > > I think that's because that's written for the end-user rather than for > the programmer: the end user doesn't know `jit-lock-register`, but it > may know `font-lock-keywords-only`. > > But maybe it's really just an artifact of history (originally, jit-lock > and font-lock were more tightly linked). > > > They seem to be at least theoretically independent? If not, where's > > their connection? > > `font-lock-keywords-only` ends up passed by font-lock as > 2nd arg to `jit-lock-register`. Thanks, I tried to clarify the docs using this information.