From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: jit-lock-antiblink-grace Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 20:12:51 +0000 Message-ID: <87mucdt96k.fsf@gmail.com> References: <83k198ly94.fsf@gnu.org> <83sgnuh5cq.fsf@gnu.org> <87k17qozii.fsf@gmail.com> <83wobps0zy.fsf@gnu.org> <20191125184650.GA4496@ACM> <20191125192628.GC4496@ACM> <20191125201115.GD4496@ACM> <83d0deseo7.fsf@gnu.org> <87r21ptc02.fsf@gmail.com> <83y2vxmao3.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="153823"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: acm@muc.de, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 30 21:13:06 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ib973-000dtQ-0W for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 30 Nov 2019 21:13:05 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37972 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ib971-0007e0-UA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 30 Nov 2019 15:13:03 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58084) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ib96v-0007dc-9C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 30 Nov 2019 15:12:58 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ib96t-0004BD-V0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 30 Nov 2019 15:12:57 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-wr1-x42a.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::42a]:43912) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ib96t-0004Ag-OZ; Sat, 30 Nov 2019 15:12:55 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-wr1-x42a.google.com with SMTP id n1so39133218wra.10; Sat, 30 Nov 2019 12:12:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=unpdoitFCNZZXAf/vK1mZ1cyLiIC1ZiAUD2fgc+E85s=; b=I/RbWValbPcLimx+cIlCJTr2xtF8ph3lPRZOsXHRwlF75McgxRNFhO1bbY+pQeQ9Qt qenYmf+87qO0Aozl3s1zGme54YO9mw0eHu9X/sVOcGmub1V8UyzjnoqTbq7dQ1/K8dni CrQJ04bEyVnSB2cr9JIwgMl42GCt5/Ef7cWBNx8X7JdZEWSLmi/6DW4QU4VCC5Fu7arO uV8gM2YdJabcuIN07Z7+rZJ2zBZ4psThR2xAVni6J+YPBth3Jmm4zaE9e7kpVlUC6y2q Fc64d+iUqpVkko9uEakzzb57iUvKfI0d47ykU9VI78sV26P9UPCZuMk8FVpbmhEoqelB wU4w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=unpdoitFCNZZXAf/vK1mZ1cyLiIC1ZiAUD2fgc+E85s=; b=ddyU4fjnSuEafpvS/E335A3qvDZsEdlWIsngW9qKTH6ChkvChiVG3m2fiyLuuWJTT5 czvUWd6ZdJOZJTRWcElzZhZdbkoS45ZYDJnzYhOIx0xIg3PBKqiU89s5DhYY8NnB2PR4 6voo5dol+XTw76+S/VkS/QUHuPo1zovcV8ExShAWtZlky+3C2MRvbkTvXBlXeBarKPnz TVhFXv4Lh/aTRzDdq8FSW1BxfEFc0x/s/uY1KbHf/3qjs4cRCVO2eeKvoeBWh4vZhQnq rxDC5jCklGHZcEsMCfCemb6nlOhrQk0U4lmLcbQTAZSdGYkI9HdyWmmSR2qiBZ6s2BYI /b4g== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVCd6IN+ebrY9cir1i0YQvFFscVPoYGBj6Ck8z0jhkXSGfn2RrO 2saKQhZ2VbTYT5W01qGHG50= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz1AXAo1zBtsVPGCVGUwBr6jEL4b70r8pHIkJRGAHBaRxIXfwhqAIb+wHWNPnvvelRNnAyw7w== X-Received: by 2002:adf:f508:: with SMTP id q8mr14813687wro.334.1575144774424; Sat, 30 Nov 2019 12:12:54 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from lolita.yourcompany.com ([2001:818:d820:9500:1ebb:afd8:ab26:f0f6]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o1sm17904537wrn.84.2019.11.30.12.12.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 30 Nov 2019 12:12:53 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <83y2vxmao3.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 30 Nov 2019 21:22:36 +0200") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:4864:20::42a X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:242922 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> between line 3 and 7. >> b. You go to line 7 and type a quote >> c. You go to line 3 and type a quote >>=20 >> Previously, after step b) you would get lines 8, 9, and 10 (and 7 >> partially) string-fontified "immediately". >>=20 >> Now, after step b), and _if stay on the same line_, it takes 2 seconds >> for lines 7-10 to be string-fontified. If you leave line 7 in your >> journey to line 3 before those 2 seconds are up, 7-10 are immediately >> string-fontified (and the old and new version become identical in >> behaviour). > > So how is this a problem, if at worst we get the old behavior? After b), you now have to wait 2 seconds (jit-lock-antiblink-grace) before you get the old behaviour (string-fontifying 7-10). Previously, you would get it after 0.5 seconds (jit-lock-context-time). It's arguable that the new behaviour is worse than the old one, for the specific case where you already expected lines 7-10 to be temporarily invalidly fontified anyway. (I say "invalid" because the user's intention is to move up to line 3) Anyway, I think it's a pretty minor thing, but I wanted to record it for completeness. >> +** New customizable variable 'jit-lock-antiblink-grace'. >> +When typing strings, this helps avoid "blinking", an oscillation >> +between string and non-string fontification. The variable holds a >> +number of seconds (default is 2) before a potentially unwanted >> +fontification starts. Set to nil to deactivate. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > "Deactivate" is not self-explanatory here, because the text didn't > mention any "activation". I suggest this instead: > > Set to nil to get back the old behavior. OK. I will also add the "set marker buffer to nil" optimization that Alan suggested. If there's no further comments, I will push this to master in a day or so. Jo=C3=A3o