From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ndame Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Why doesn't emacs yield more? Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 11:33:42 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="141181"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" To: "help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org" Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Aug 29 11:34:15 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@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 1i3Goo-000ae7-9b for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 11:34:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47278 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i3Gon-00075B-6W for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 05:34:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38647) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i3GoT-000750-Ou for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 05:33:55 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i3GoS-0007Gd-LH for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 05:33:53 -0400 Original-Received: from fmfe33.onbox.hu ([46.107.16.238]:33410 helo=web-out.onbox.hu) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i3GoS-0007EG-3V for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 05:33:52 -0400 X-fm-smtp-source: yes Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [62.165.192.34]) by web-out.onbox.hu (Postfix) with SMTP id 46Jy924RXTz3h7 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 11:33:42 +0200 (CEST) X-AccountId: 57978162 X-Originating-Ip: 62.165.192.34 X-VR-SPAMSTATE: OK X-VR-SPAMSCORE: 0 X-VR-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrudeivddgudegucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdpucfhtffggffotefknfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefhkffugggtvfhiffesrgdtregstddtudenucfhrhhomhepnhgurghmvgcuoegvmhgrtghsuhhsvghrsehfrhgvvghmrghilhdrhhhuqeenucfkphepiedvrdduieehrdduledvrdefgeenucfrrghrrghmpehhvghloheppdhinhgvthepiedvrdduieehrdduledvrdefgedpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegvmhgrtghsuhhsvghrsehfrhgvvghmrghilhdrhhhupdhrtghpthhtohephhgvlhhpqdhgnhhuqdgvmhgrtghssehgnhhurdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=simple/relaxed; t=1567071222; s=20181004; d=freemail.hu; h=From:Message-ID:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type:To:Date; l=2134; bh=QBvnDflc5z+j7/Mp+uVWOPJmKo4rnh4+9OVfLCarRAc=; b=VfOfEjo4qhlJ3UQOov+bnW0uCitqQmdPe9Yp4OMA0mHtN5/4kVDyORaa2VxMHYvf Cdcko5kVoFIxVURrLDSaNfatxryVCZq2pNr6IRptqjkLGlNXWN8JGRDc0rYB+wz66bb FpSlUfWE12PkPogMrYVQaAtxkeEmGzBrX3KQ12UeFMwFgSFEf9ml1RVi8H8jLEsIKzy ToROENR8hc3KcSMiwOpq2yui5yfXquF+AwT94ciGe2hB11mNnPAgI7TIXqlw3BoEZ1x Jnz8ygGKx0RkwogpG3+yBED5Sf1/EXan+bpJ/5yNT/bPaRCKnDxnc1VRqHGMf9HLVB0 gEI+HOCl0w== X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: FreeBSD 9.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 46.107.16.238 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.23 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "help-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:121391 Archived-At: I inadvertently pasted a huge elisp list structure into a buffer and it took me 10 seconds or so to regain control, because emacs was bogged down by formatting/highlighting the list I think. It tried to hit C-g several times to no avail which made me think: why doesn't emacs yield more during long operations by checking if the user canceled the operation? I don't mean putting checks everywhere manually, but using some automatic code translator which would inject such checks automatically in the source codes of loops or something, before the actual compilation of emacs. Would it be a big performance hit? I don't know if the check could be inlined somehow. Was something like this discussed before? (I posted this to help, because I don't know the internal architecture of emacs, so the question may be naive or unworkable.)