From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs Subject: Re: Mysterious fontification/C++ context issue Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 16:13:29 +0100 Message-ID: <851wn7iy1y.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <45742464.1090504@gmx.at> <20061204203024.D17603@colin2.muc.de> <45768797.5010106@gmx.at> <87odqhj89q.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <20061210014526.GB3738@muc.de> <877ix0lfm8.fsf@furball.mit.edu> <20061210102249.GA1235@muc.de> <85irgjj4un.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <20061210160056.GB3908@muc.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: dough.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1165763642 31541 80.91.229.10 (10 Dec 2006 15:14:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 15:14:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 10 16:14:01 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by dough.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1GtQNH-0000DK-7s for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 16:13:55 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GtQNG-0003P2-Lz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:13:54 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GtQN3-0003OA-JP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:13:41 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GtQN2-0003NR-Lp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:13:41 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GtQN2-0003NM-9s; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:13:40 -0500 Original-Received: from [212.7.152.118] (helo=mxout04.versatel.de) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1GtQN1-0000Nh-Gb; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:13:40 -0500 Original-Received: from mx02.versatel.de (mx01.versatel.de [212.7.146.1]) by mxout04.versatel.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id kBAFDbOE000639; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 16:13:37 +0100 Original-Received: from lola.goethe.zz (i5387AF35.versanet.de [83.135.175.53]) by mx02.versatel.de (8.12.11.20060614/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kBAFDbgS010213; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 16:13:37 +0100 Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 97A301CAD6E1; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 16:13:29 +0100 (CET) Original-To: Alan Mackenzie In-Reply-To: <20061210160056.GB3908@muc.de> (Alan Mackenzie's message of "10 Dec 2006 15\:50\:39 +0100\, Sun\, 10 Dec 2006 16\:00\:56 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.91 (gnu/linux) 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:63549 gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs:15643 Archived-At: Alan Mackenzie writes: > Guten Tag, David! > > On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 01:46:40PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: >> Alan Mackenzie writes: > >> > With Martin Rudalics's optimisation to c-beginning-of-defun-raw, I >> > don't feel that the slowness is too bad any more (though he does >> > ;-). In the extreme case xdisp.c, scrolling to EOB and M-v is >> > mildly sluggish (about half a second), on my 5 year old Athlon 1.2 >> > GHz machine. A typical new PC now is, say, 3 GHZ. In the time >> > Emacs 22 is the current release, a typical new PC will come to be >> > around 20 GHz, and this slowness will not matter. > >> Please, arguments like that are just not acceptable. If examples with >> barely tolerable behavior can be come across easily, you can bet that >> there will be normal use cases where the the behavior will be quite >> intolerable. And even on faster machines, editing should try avoiding >> draining unnecessary CPU power: editing is by far the most important >> application where you want to have a long battery life for laptops. > >> I am working with a 600MHz laptop, and my occasionally used desktop >> system has a 233MHz processor. The preview-latex >> package >> has been streamlined to operate well on such machines. It would be >> really a bad hoax if syntax highlighting (which does a lot less) would >> make such machines unusable for editing with an up-to-date Emacs with >> default settings. > > Hey, just calm down a bit and take a few long deep breaths! You've > snipped my argument and left only the supporting discussion. I'm NOT > arguing that anybody should have this "barely tolerable behaviour" > thrust upon him; the user should be able to set his system up as he > wishes. Disagree. The _default_ should be such that the behavior is tolerable, without the user having to set up anything. > I'm merely saying that in a few years time the point will be moot. Disagree. Non-local O(n^2) (or worse) behavior will exhaust any advance of computing power eventually. You've snipped my argument. > And that for Emacs 23, we will be able to set the default value of > open-paren-...-start to nil, just as in Emacs 22 font-locking is > enabled by default. We only enabled font-locking after hunting down the cases where it lead to intolerable behavior. Since the original behavior was not deemed acceptable, I don't see why we should now act cavalier about regressions. > Hopefully Emacs will always be such that wierdos who, for whatever > reason, want to run with font-lock disabled, or on bare TTYs, or on > early 1990s machines can do so comfortably. ;-) Hopefully Emacs will work tolerably for all use cases without having to strip it down to "weirdo level" from its default settings. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum