From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:27:26 +0200 Message-ID: <85hd13m2s1.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <81CCA6588E60BB42BE68BD029ED4826008838221@wimex2.wim.midas-kapiti.com> <44C0EA68.40105@gmx.at> <44C1EE07.3080502@gmx.at> <44C750EC.2020004@gmx.at> <85irlk6l00.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1154017716 2610 80.91.229.2 (27 Jul 2006 16:28:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:28:36 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rudalics@gmx.at, simon.marshall@misys.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 27 18:28:32 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G68iS-0002Vh-Bj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:28:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G68iR-0002VZ-Qo for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:28:03 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1G68i1-0002Ip-UG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:27:37 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1G68i1-0002IP-8N for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:27:37 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G68i1-0002IL-1w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:27:37 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1G68jo-0000Py-KA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:29:28 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lola.goethe.zz) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1G68ht-0001Xb-Sx; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:27:30 -0400 Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 1FDFA1D20050; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:27:26 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:04:01 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (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:57683 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: > Wouldn't it be safer if such counts would be compared for equality > only? > > It would be, but I doubt it is possible in general > to use only equality comparisons. Does someone want to study > the question and see? Another possibility would be to check the sign of their difference instead of comparing them directly. Then wraparound is not a problem, instead one of them has to have moved more than half the total range away from the other before things get ugly. Probably less likely. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum