Re: `font-lock-extend-region-functions' vs. `font-lock-extend-after-change-region-function'

["Tobias C. Rittweiler" <tcr@freebits.de>]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> > But the new region that EXTEND is called with begins at 523, and not 701
> > even though we processed the region between 523 and 701 already.
> > This seems more inefficient than it needs to be if I'm not missing
> > anything.
>
> You're not missing anything.  It's an inefficiency in jit-lock, indeed.
> jit-lock asks font-lock to highlight 1-523 and font-lock has no way to
> tell jit-lock that the first call already highlighted 1-701, so next
> time jit-lock needs highlighting it will do 523-1034 because it doesn't
> know that 523-701 was done already.

Is this intended to be fixed? For example, the extending of the
font-lock region could be made a seperate step which
`jit-lock-fontify-now' has to run explicitly.

  -T.