From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Documentation for "Clone Buffers" (corrected version) Date: 22 Mar 2004 08:40:40 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <200403191747.i2JHlPS28017@f7.net> <3405-Sat20Mar2004160433+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1079937718 26030 80.91.224.253 (22 Mar 2004 06:41:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 06:41:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: juri@jurta.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, karl@freefriends.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 22 07:41:51 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1B5J8B-0003tb-00 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 07:41:51 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1B5J8B-0004lG-00 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 07:41:51 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1B5J5w-0000LY-Lj for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 01:39:32 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.30) id 1B5J5k-0000I1-KV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 01:39:20 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.30) id 1B5J4o-00083w-Ok for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 01:38:56 -0500 Original-Received: from [207.232.27.5] (helo=WST0054) by monty-python.gnu.org with asmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1B5J4n-0007ud-O6; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 01:38:21 -0500 Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-reply-to: (message from Richard Stallman on Mon, 22 Mar 2004 00:24:19 -0500) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:20713 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:20713 > From: Richard Stallman > Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 00:24:19 -0500 > > If implemented naively, that could be prohibitively slow, I think. To > get a feeling how slow, try "info --apropos=SOMETHING" with the > stand-alone Info reader. > > They are not comparable. That searches all manuals. I am talking about > searching a specified list of manuals. It was a long time since I did those experiments, but I think I saw poor performance even when only a few manuals were visible. I will try to experiment again. > However, this comparison might be valid in the case of commands, > because many manuals might define at least one command. So in the > case of commands we might want to put the command names into the > special node of `dir'. Doesn't this require changes in install-info, and thus has one of the 2 disadvantages you mentioned in your other mail? (FWIW, I don't think that changes in install-info or in the language are such a significant disadvantage.) > I think it would be a mistake to use a database that does not consist > of straightforward text. The speed of searching text for a string is > so fast that there is no point in optimizing it. Perhaps in Emacs it is, but IIRC that's not true for the stand-alone reader, whose search algorithm is very simple and thus inefficient for large chunks of text. But I agree that we should try plain text and see what is the actual speed before we decide to do something more complex.