From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?iso-8859-15?q?J=E9r=F4me_Marant?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: lazy-lock is obsolete? Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 19:41:02 +0200 Message-ID: <87u0mpvzyp.fsf@marant.org> References: <8764za5mjn.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> <87ekdy1a4d.fsf@marant.org> <1112165123.424a4b03c2b45@imp6-q.free.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1112463982 30881 80.91.229.2 (2 Apr 2005 17:46:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 17:46:22 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Apr 02 19:46:20 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DHmhA-0006W2-CO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 02 Apr 2005 19:46:04 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DHmig-0003MH-BH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 02 Apr 2005 12:47:38 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DHmhr-0003AG-Ak for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Apr 2005 12:46:47 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DHmhm-00038Q-VD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Apr 2005 12:46:45 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DHmhm-00036t-ID for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Apr 2005 12:46:42 -0500 Original-Received: from [213.228.0.176] (helo=postfix4-2.free.fr) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DHmca-0007kH-N2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Apr 2005 12:41:20 -0500 Original-Received: from amboise (unknown [82.227.97.206]) by postfix4-2.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24F5030265C for ; Sat, 2 Apr 2005 19:41:08 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: by amboise (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 88B5D2C03E; Sat, 2 Apr 2005 19:41:02 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:21:31 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (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:35504 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:35504 Richard Stallman writes: > I recalled that I switched from jit to lazy because it seemed to me > that lazy was faster (with 21.3) > > Could you try them again now, and let's see if lazy-lock is really > faster now? If it is, it would be nice to know why. I can't really see any difference. I don't object for it to be obsoleted. Cheers, --=20 J=E9r=F4me Marant