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: hi-lock and overlays Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:54:47 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87hbqk620u.fsf@thinkpad.tsdh.de> <87ljfvqerd.fsf@thinkpad.tsdh.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1264002945 942 80.91.229.12 (20 Jan 2010 15:55:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:55:45 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 20 16:55:38 2010 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 1NXcu9-0002Lo-5E for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:55:37 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44410 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NXcuA-0000dc-2D for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:55:38 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NXcte-0000Ew-Jq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:55:06 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NXctZ-00008e-GC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:55:05 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=42797 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NXctZ-00008T-DH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:55:01 -0500 Original-Received: from chene.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.20]:58435) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NXctY-000804-Se for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:55:01 -0500 Original-Received: from ceviche.home (faina.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.26.177]) by chene.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o0KFsnZU015651; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:54:53 -0500 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id B3E7C700E0; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:54:47 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87ljfvqerd.fsf@thinkpad.tsdh.de> (Tassilo Horn's message of "Mon, 18 Jan 2010 22:33:58 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.91 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV3451=0 X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:120262 Archived-At: > - Why does hi-lock use two different styles of highlighting? IMO, if > a user does M-x highlight-regexp RET foo RET hi-yellow RET, he > expects to get that highlighting even if there are other overlays, > so creating an overlay (and maybe even setting a priority) is the > only safe bet. overlays are implemented inefficiently, so if you have many of them, redisplay, buffer modifications, and other operations can become noticeably slower. Stefan