From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Chong Yidong Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Display slowness that is painful Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 01:02:36 -0500 Message-ID: <87fyn2qow3.fsf@stupidchicken.com> References: <87slr5c78p.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <877j8fx43q.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87acdblr9b.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> <87mzhbd6kv.fsf@stupidchicken.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1138860188 27675 80.91.229.2 (2 Feb 2006 06:03:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 06:03:08 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, Stefan Monnier , rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 02 07:03:06 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 1F4XYe-0003MR-Jh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 07:03:05 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F4Xbj-0007LP-JK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 01:06:15 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1F4XbR-0007IS-Nx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 01:05:57 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1F4XbQ-0007F2-74 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 01:05:57 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F4XbP-0007Eu-VK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 01:05:56 -0500 Original-Received: from [18.95.6.38] (helo=localhost.localdomain) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1F4Xa5-0007nt-K5; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 01:04:33 -0500 Original-Received: by localhost.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5D8B01E429B; Thu, 2 Feb 2006 01:02:36 -0500 (EST) Original-To: Miles Bader In-Reply-To: (Miles Bader's message of "Wed, 01 Feb 2006 14:15:52 +0900") 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:49918 Archived-At: Miles Bader writes: > Chong Yidong writes: >> I'm confused. How does it make sense to display characters in \XXX >> format instead? Both methods produce gibberish (as one would expect >> of a binary file). So we might as well choose the gibberish that >> redisplays faster. > > Because gibberish with a big "Gibberish" label (which is sort of what > the octal syntax is) is a lot more presentable, and looks less like > Emacs just fucked something up. Maybe we should look for something that displays faster than the octal representation, but is "clearly" gibberish. Like a single "empty box" glyph, for example. Apart from binary files, are unibyte buffers used for anything? Is there any situation in which characters above 127, occuring in unibyte buffers, have any user-discernable meaning?