From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] /srv/bzr/emacs/trunk r109512: Inline functions to examine and change buffer overlays. Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 21:16:16 +0300 Message-ID: <83wr19dzbj.fsf@gnu.org> References: <5022934F.3050702@yandex.ru> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1344449784 23495 80.91.229.3 (8 Aug 2012 18:16:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 18:16:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: dmantipov@yandex.ru, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 08 20:16:23 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SzAnu-0006xE-QG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 20:16:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41352 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SzAnt-0006wa-Qk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:16:21 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:50221) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SzAnr-0006wS-4O for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:16:20 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SzAnp-0004if-VF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:16:19 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:37866) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SzAnp-0004ec-NO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:16:17 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0M8G00C007YLMX00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 21:16:16 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0M8G00CD5832JR40@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 21:16:14 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 80.179.55.172 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:152348 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:05:12 -0400 > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > I think that it's reasonable to have just one chain of overlays per > > buffer, much like the markers and intervals chains per buffer text. > > Why? > The point of having 2 is that they're sorted in opposite order, so that > finding overlays close to the division point is faster than O(n). FWIW, the display engine uses this division quite a lot. If we end up removing it, I suggest to time the code with and without it, e.g. by timing some modes that are heavy users of overlays.