From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ihor Radchenko Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Improving Emacs' iCalendar support Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 18:59:38 +0000 Message-ID: <87msisqa91.fsf@localhost> References: <87ed4dss2x.fsf@ohm.mail-host-address-is-not-set> <0bacd69a-7941-44d2-ac5e-3ae3f256481a@alphapapa.net> <87r08cqye8.fsf@ohm.mail-host-address-is-not-set> <87zfmwyoa9.fsf@localhost> <87bjzbp509.fsf@ohm.mail-host-address-is-not-set> <87plnqpnxr.fsf@pie.tf> <87y12d8sf0.fsf@ohm.mail-host-address-is-not-set> <875xpho0nu.fsf@localhost> <878qucxs1s.fsf@ohm.mail-host-address-is-not-set> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="35266"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Richard Lawrence Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 25 20:58:58 2024 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 1t4PWU-0008yC-1t for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 25 Oct 2024 20:58:58 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1t4PVf-0004cp-2G; Fri, 25 Oct 2024 14:58:07 -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 1t4PVc-0004ca-Gm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Oct 2024 14:58:04 -0400 Original-Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1t4PVa-0001Le-FX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Oct 2024 14:58:04 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D063F240027 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2024 20:57:53 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1729882673; bh=t15nRLYTg/QTTNUpyIT7xjUHVFEVZGZNeZWMdLNT5rU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type: From; b=qyEj4Plxxzw5KAj42i9BO7QCwjzfi981RLsx9NKMMzaULAwWUiP5aCL3PxJjjsrFq Ej5S+0CPuVIa3d+nEHmTGq1QxLoWc4KzIfR07uclkha4pkMBhU7I/rpbqQDkkNPzIJ FXEbhGXhdw5SdkDRaFSR13Ynv0TaPt4kak5h+cfZRD6CXv2fFdTpShBrSXqAhf7ZcM sbygkJniLGOYimEJlrpzKOoM321QE1aXLRMeBDvg1FDx5W50l7C2JcR73Dm1fah1F7 UJbbQRHXXrGEx2YKZ4M/DOGtqfauGIY2qDfjqne2JZeRWFBFbXUqmGlcbYd3FBXGM1 eGtDqPpLXhZlw== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4XZsVT1QlCz9rxM; Fri, 25 Oct 2024 20:57:53 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <878qucxs1s.fsf@ohm.mail-host-address-is-not-set> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.65; envelope-from=yantar92@posteo.net; helo=mout01.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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:324842 Archived-At: Richard Lawrence writes: > Can you tell me a bit more about the performance benefits? Do these > mostly just stem from the use of an array for :standard-properties? :standard-properties and lazy evaluation. > (You get this for free with cl-structs, too.) Not exactly for free. There are extra type checks in cl-structs, and they are slower to create. I did the benchmarking and decided to go with less sophisticated data structure supported by inlined accessors/setters. Also, as a technical detail that is irrelevant to your case, I had to preserve backwards compatibility with the existing design to the highest extent possible. > ... Or is it more about when > and how parsing happens? (This is something I feel like I've never > grasped in org-element...in the past I've been confused because the > properties I'd see when calling e.g. org-element-at-point would be > different than the ones available in some other context.) org-element-ast has little to do with parsing details. However, it does provide features we need during parsing: (1) storing arbitrary properties in addition to "standard"; (2) supporting "plain string" as a special variant of AST leaf; (3) supporting anonymous nodes - simple list of AST nodes; (4) lazy evaluation of properties - org-element uses the APIs from org-element-ast to defer large parts of parsing to when the relevant part of the AST node is actually requested by a caller. For org-element-at-point, you may be confused because Org parser can work in several modes, parsing down to certain "granularity". org-element-at-point usually limits itself to parsing down to paragraph level (in particular, it does not parse markup inside headline :title leaving it as a simple plain text leaf), while what you see during export is the most complete parsing mode, reaching down to markup (in headlines, :title then contains a collection of Org "objects" - the markup is parsed). This has nothing to do with the AST layout. -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at