From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stefan Monnier" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: new text property Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:30:59 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <1023607376.8184.1228.camel@space-ghost> <87y9dnycw8.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87bsajy6y8.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1023720156 12954 127.0.0.1 (10 Jun 2002 14:42:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:42:36 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Miles Bader , Colin Walters , emacs-devel@gnu.org, xemacs-design@xemacs.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17HQNQ-0003Mp-00 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 16:42:36 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17HQkI-00029d-00 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:06:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17HQMv-0001C8-00; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:42:05 -0400 Original-Received: from rum.cs.yale.edu ([128.36.229.169]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17HQCG-0000Fu-00; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:31:04 -0400 Original-Received: (from monnier@localhost) by rum.cs.yale.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g5AEV0G28267; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:31:00 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 Original-To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:4704 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:4704 > Miles> Which obstacles are those? > > If I knew, I'd say. > > What I do know is that font-lock itself has a minimum of five > implementations (font-lock, font-lock-cache, lazy-lock, lazy-shot, and > jit-lock). font-lock-cache, lazy-lock, lazy-shot, and jit-lock and 4 different implementations of various mechanisms to try and reduce the amount of work that font-lock does. They are mostly orthogonal to font-lock itself and they are in no way reimplementations of font-lock. > Primitive highlighting has at least three interfaces > (overlays, text properties, extents). This looks like an area ripe > for consolidation, not proliferation, of APIs to me. `extents' are the consolidation, aren't they ? Stefan