From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: lazy-lock is obsolete?
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:21:31 -0500
Message-ID: <E1DH4IN-00048R-J0@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <8764za5mjn.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> <87ekdy1a4d.fsf@marant.org>
	<u7jjq84xk.fsf@jasonrumney.net>
	<1112165123.424a4b03c2b45@imp6-q.free.fr>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1112293586 32397 80.91.229.2 (31 Mar 2005 18:26:26 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:26:26 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 31 20:26:25 2005
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165])
	by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1DH4MO-0003m7-St
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:25:41 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1DH4d9-00046r-0G
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:42:59 -0500
Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1DH4a7-0001SJ-R8
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:39:52 -0500
Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1DH4a4-0001Mu-3V
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:39:49 -0500
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DH4a2-0001GT-14
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:39:46 -0500
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DH4Ic-0001uc-1E
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:21:46 -0500
Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34)
	id 1DH4IN-00048R-J0; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:21:31 -0500
Original-To: jerome.marant@free.fr
In-reply-to: <1112165123.424a4b03c2b45@imp6-q.free.fr> (message from
	=?iso-8859-1?b?Suly9G1l?= Marant on Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:45:23 +0200)
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=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:35437
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:35437

    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.