From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: jit-lock-antiblink-grace Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2019 13:16:45 -0400 Message-ID: References: <834l0enw8c.fsf@gnu.org> <83y2xqm6m4.fsf@gnu.org> <83tv8em48z.fsf@gnu.org> <83pnj2lzx8.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="96735"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: joaotavora@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 12 19:17:26 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iJL1B-000P0X-Fo for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 19:17:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35008 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iJL1A-0003V1-Cd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 13:17:24 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36210) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iJL0e-0003Up-QZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 13:16:53 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iJL0d-0003iS-FI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 13:16:52 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:13869) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iJL0b-0003ht-QQ; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 13:16:49 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B7127448E45; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 13:16:48 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8B2D2448E3F; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 13:16:47 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1570900607; bh=hsNym7307oeHnSE8u+JsC8bg0n76WkKLrzjGtUrX6Zc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=MLQKuSMc8qJQfEwkann/a9H4uo+Mr8Ra5Z/NwMV8KbJwACkegJ19sJovg1nlIhqq9 J5YtOQM9u/mkbnyJIt5Fkk0Kbn+urO6omobrS3wBDWwsT87YswoxYYqeU/fajgNwvl 9kzuRp8cEb1TRmDJYW9D6kN/jhs25pKiyQR7S0PVqvfJZD6s9bW0gte+ASj/LCK3OV SLaFtWJYuZSlimJZUxsRBG2G/P2fFYFYen2jNKgWAsi4uETcPRjEaqGuG6odJFoAIm H6/SXuNS7B2GbKgxETqn2LmSixIs0YWSxe/ABF23r9gj30D2ldwJL4MEmQHzAGqK4N bqE18CU7OpINg== Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [216.154.35.246]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1876D12019C; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 13:16:47 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83pnj2lzx8.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 12 Oct 2019 18:57:23 +0300") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 132.204.25.50 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:240929 Archived-At: > What is the purpose of this argument? Do you agree that adding too > much to post-command-hook should be avoided? I agree that post-command-hook is never the "right" place. But I don't think moving to a place that runs at every redisplay will help very much in terms of the risk of impacting responsiveness. Also often there's no "right" place, so we end up choosing post-command-hook because it's the least bad choice. I'd like the patch to be installed, because I think it'll need tweaking but that we need more experience with it in order to figure out what to do. >> > Font lock does slow down Emacs, so calling it in more cases/places >> > will do so as well. >> AFAICT the code doesn't call font-lock. > It adds a timer that does. AFAICT this only runs code which has been delayed (i.e. it would have been run earlier if it weren't for this feature), so it's "no worse". And it's an idle-timer run after 2s of idle time, so impact on responsiveness should be minimal even in the worst case. Stefan