From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Artur Malabarba Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 19:36:35 +0000 Message-ID: References: <837fl2qzs2.fsf@gnu.org> <83610ikvto.fsf@gnu.org> <87vb8iqa0l.fsf@udel.edu> Reply-To: bruce.connor.am@gmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c348749db02a0525db467d X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1448998609 5306 80.91.229.3 (1 Dec 2015 19:36:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 19:36:49 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel To: Mark Oteiza Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 01 20:36:49 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1a3qjG-0002EV-R0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2015 20:36:46 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54565 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a3qjF-00080v-KX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2015 14:36:45 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55872) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a3qjB-0007xN-10 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2015 14:36:41 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a3qj7-0008O2-8Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2015 14:36:40 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-lf0-x233.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c07::233]:35843) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a3qj7-0008Ny-1m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Dec 2015 14:36:37 -0500 Original-Received: by lfs39 with SMTP id 39so20413433lfs.3 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2015 11:36:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=9MbGEKxW2BuuYY8B2k7Je8f9cI8l8joS8YIwD6KjQDw=; b=V76/BcdQLEiIlaWGcAmD0KccI21MEQe/AjfXWcS74H9Af903ZCT7aChJeXRd5D8qUT REwzlJvrWOIJpXzZdO8umVcMkImN3VBo0vX51O71vbqusByUC0ryd8wCuDqRvozjXqCU c9JYvXO1YCzzGl2AVPFr9vGdxxwcihFo8K1URRHOl3DKd+1bX9/POj5sjAqBlhuCvA5n 7ikhW16iC1nx4tiBge70I02Vko82LKGsL98kjYy6T7VcjSp4j+or9ARXwXbCPMbZp5kx AwkqXt7QT+QhmgTg7+HoRC8RGApRCRFWTBF4z5p2dbxVwwmPySP5TtVRFtQyNLYzVdaa IhKQ== X-Received: by 10.112.161.33 with SMTP id xp1mr29273413lbb.141.1448998596351; Tue, 01 Dec 2015 11:36:36 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.112.202.99 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 11:36:35 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.112.202.99 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 11:36:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87vb8iqa0l.fsf@udel.edu> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 6dmTZPKiKGxklg2SLhAySCCm-TU X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:4010:c07::233 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:195709 Archived-At: --001a11c348749db02a0525db467d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 1 Dec 2015 6:49 pm, "Mark Oteiza" wrote: > I think the performance hit of char-folding is a good reason to disable > it. (Perhaps it's much worse for me since this emacs is not optimized.) I honestly didn't notice a performance hit, and I compile without optimizations. Is there a particular search-term/buffer-contents that lead to your problem? --001a11c348749db02a0525db467d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

On 1 Dec 2015 6:49 pm, "Mark Oteiza" <mvoteiza@udel.edu> wrote:
> I think the performance hit of char-folding is a good reason to disable
> it. (Perhaps it's much worse for me since this emacs is not optimized.)

I honestly didn't notice a performance hit, and I compile without optimizations. Is there a particular search-term/buffer-contents that lead to your problem?

--001a11c348749db02a0525db467d--