From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Breakpoint ignored. Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:21:40 -0400 Message-ID: References: <877hutz9zb.fsf@telefonica.net> <83hbtxgwqz.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1255958522 17564 80.91.229.12 (19 Oct 2009 13:22:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:22:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ofv@wanadoo.es, Eli Zaretskii , rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Andreas Schwab Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 19 15:21:53 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MzsBM-0000oU-Tx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:21:53 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54834 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MzsBM-0000vC-BM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:21:52 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MzsBH-0000ui-QF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:21:47 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MzsBD-0000qK-Ck for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:21:47 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=37412 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MzsBD-0000pv-3c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:21:43 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:6793 helo=ironport2-out.pppoe.ca) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MzsBB-0008Tt-3H; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:21:41 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArMEAOIE3EpLd/m0/2dsb2JhbACBUtlWhDEEiAU X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,585,1249272000"; d="scan'208";a="47801721" Original-Received: from 75-119-249-180.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([75.119.249.180]) by ironport2-out.pppoe.ca with ESMTP; 19 Oct 2009 09:21:40 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 52B2580E7; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:21:40 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Andreas Schwab's message of "Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:20:38 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. 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:116245 Archived-At: >> You are probably missing the fact that Emacs tries to optimize the >> case of insertion of a single character. >> >> This optimization was very important in 1985. >> But computers are much faster now. > It's more than about speed. It also about making useful undo > boundaries, and this feature should not be killed. I added this feature to Fself_insert_command, so there shouldn't be any such difference in this respect any more. Stefan PS: The mere presence of such a difference counts as a bug to me.