From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: `--with-small-ja-dic` Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 09:13:19 -0500 Message-ID: References: <86zfw2w7e8.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="32299"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 15 15:14:11 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1racV7-0008EW-HZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:14:09 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1racUR-0001v5-UD; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 09:13:27 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1racUR-0001uv-3S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 09:13:27 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1racUP-0006z4-63; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 09:13:26 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B758C44133F; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 09:13:22 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1708006400; bh=iizS2MCEssYuQrcmy3sIBqoZfp/RFY9gw3Zx+fPPpB4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=GqD67EA5tHVimYWmhYbOi5Bua9Ra0u5uGJq2DIpUk1iNjI9TERQBZiMbegED7yPmD wN2AhmmuqOKd6Xp1yjefTOmXk42VtQTrU4CDaQxC6SHz5A1sIRchcir3lcfxoSsoRi rVZD/aSVGATCAPrEQKMvH/XP7Z3tQxDynkzh6FlquwJ/vifG7v4fpW4uO8rXSv89FR LS3TIh2bFbfFW0+fNsHBBnPLgu1SJ8vLMz5x3uL7CxUSj2Fy3+MkDEVNyfs6tkHi4R Mbzl0o33nauCO9PTU9hP7WGE22n+PaCzwXBRYWc0DltfZG+TU6rqwKph1W/GAwZw4w Ma5JiFZyIsSyA== Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D7AA444077B; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 09:13:20 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [45.72.197.152]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B4F2F1203A5; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 09:13:20 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <86zfw2w7e8.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 15 Feb 2024 08:47:43 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:316233 Archived-At: >> Is this option still relevant? > I think it is. It isn't that old, either; see > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2022-06/msg00122.html > > which gave its birth (and the following discussion). Hmm... OK, so AFAICT the reason to have it as a compile-time option is that we found no compelling reason to ever use the reduced dictionary, but we were afraid to make the change without offering some way to get the old behavior, and the compile-time option was the cheaper way to get that. Then I suggest we remove that option altogether. >> And if is, why is it that it is a compile-time choice rather than >> a run-time choice? > Because it's simpler, and also avoids making the build longer and the > tarball larger. > Why are you bothered by this, may I ask? It just seems very odd: when I read the (long) list of `configure` options, this one really stands out as being "unrelated" to the build. If the option were `--with-big-ja-dic` I could imagine that we considered the generated file to be too large for a normal build, but the other way around doesn't make sense given all the other stuff we include that any specific user will never use. Stefan