From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs design and architecture. How about copy-on-write? Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 13:03:29 +0300 Message-ID: <83fs37aln2.fsf@gnu.org> References: <877conk5ny.fsf@localhost> <83ttrreeu0.fsf@gnu.org> <87bkdzeas1.fsf@localhost> <83cyyfe5l8.fsf@gnu.org> <87led2o0nb.fsf@localhost> <83ttrqcpfb.fsf@gnu.org> <877comnv4a.fsf@localhost> <83fs3ackrq.fsf@gnu.org> <99e84ae7-b3aa-a009-5cb8-a75826343196@gutov.dev> <838r92cgxp.fsf@gnu.org> <837comcam8.fsf@gnu.org> <6946e6f0-c6ef-186c-35d4-c09935c05a07@gutov.dev> <83y1h1axtq.fsf@gnu.org> <87sf79rq5o.fsf@yahoo.com> <83fs38c2yv.fsf@gnu.org> <83o7hw9ee1.fsf@gnu.org> <87il84q845.fsf@yahoo.com> <83il849bx6.fsf@gnu.org> <87a5tfri8c.fsf@yahoo.com> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="10534"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: dmitry@gutov.dev, yantar92@posteo.net, acm@muc.de, incal@dataswamp.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Po Lu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 21 12:03:51 2023 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 1qjGXH-0002TV-OZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 12:03:51 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qjGWq-00057k-Re; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 06:03:24 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qjGWp-00057c-SL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 06:03:23 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qjGWo-0002IX-GI; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 06:03:22 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=NJBO/J2jDhZfl9USiFP4nlniP7AXUuYistLvNM4/VNc=; b=BmywWDQPrk/y X+7+SIVEaG4EiQJDlv73eGhqMcOgF/NQguPytKUytZh1X8Bj2NvxLTZORQRyHliVg172xRFTz59Q7 57loKWz4dRg3G4LYyqgkzyHlvpV2PbDcgzjtnTSe5cN+jo8FChZfl35LGEXd+YhaptGdDibvLlKpS q/kQsWFusdELOn0j+kjMqBuKxXHAa2ueJPHKImoA8pavHqukCGQFj1NkPXB7u3JkBsGd8ssB4DSkj g9HdjWcbicO6SBmcUrkGi+VYf/gpa9p+LXiryAY8e1pumcH1fWoRFmbvcdzSM/blRfff7mq6hKvlF x6NmBgbFR/cpVaeUOurLJg==; In-Reply-To: <87a5tfri8c.fsf@yahoo.com> (message from Po Lu on Thu, 21 Sep 2023 17:25:07 +0800) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:310881 Archived-At: > From: Po Lu > Cc: dmitry@gutov.dev, yantar92@posteo.net, acm@muc.de, > incal@dataswamp.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 17:25:07 +0800 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > Then try leaning on C-n or C-p _after_ everything is already > > fontified. You will still see that Emacs sometimes cannot keep up, > > especially if lines are not too short. > > Long lines are, at worst, infrequently encountered in source code, > aren't they? _Very_ long (as in: many megabytes) lines are indeed rare. But what I said was "not too short", meaning that don't try this with 5-character or 20-character lines and conclude that all is well. Source code with several dozens of characters are still frequent enough. > And our troubles with long lines are an algorithmic impediment, > which cannot be ameliorated merely by redisplaying each window on a > different CPU. Someone already said that, and I explained why this is false. > I guess we can only agree to disagree. It's about time.