[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#18923: Alternative scrolling model
From: |
E Sabof |
Subject: |
bug#18923: Alternative scrolling model |
Date: |
Sun, 02 Nov 2014 17:43:35 +0000 |
Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question. If you mean how to
> avoid jumps with the existing C implementation when there are inline
> images, then please show a recipe to see the problem, and let's take
> it from there.
Imagine there is a buffer with which occupies 30% of the window (ex. a diagram
in an org-mode buffer). It's positioned at (window-start). I (scroll-up 1). I'd
end up scrolling a lot more than the usual (= (default-line-height) 20) pixels,
which is what I mean by "jump".
>> >> (defun st-height (&optional pos)
>> >> "Won't report accurately, if the line is higher than window."
>> >> (cl-flet (( posn-y ()
>> >> (cdr (posn-x-y (or (posn-at-point)
>> >> (progn
>> >> (vertical-motion 0)
>> >> (set-window-start nil (point))
>> >> (posn-at-point)))))))
>> >
>> > Did you try using pos-visible-in-window-p? I think it's what you
>> > want.
>>
>> Reading through the documentation of `pos-visible-in-window-p' didn't
>> suggest how it could be useful.
>
> Do you still not understand that? If so, I will elaborate why I think
> that function is what you want.
My best guess is that I'd still have to go through a similar procedure of
comparing 2 return values for lines that have to be at least partially visible
from some position, but I would get more information on partially visible
lines. I haven't thought-through all the cases, but it might indeed always work.
>> A more descriptive name for the function would be
>> `st-get-pixel-height-of-line-at-point'.
>
> Yes, I think I understood that.
>
>> >> (cl-loop do (push (st-height) rows)
>> >> until (or (zerop (vertical-motion direction))
>> >> ;; >= ?
>> >> (>= (cl-reduce '+ rows)
>> >> (abs ammount))))
>> >
>> > I don't understand why you needed this loop. Can't you use
>> > window-body-height instead?
>>
>> What I need mostly depends on the amount of pixels I want to scroll - (for 2
>> "normal" lines, this loop would run twice) which is usually less than
>> window-body-height, but could potentially be more.
>
> IME, the most important use case is scrolling by "almost the full
> window", in which case it is better to start with window-body-height
> and subtract from it, instead of starting with zero and add to it.
> The most expensive part here is vertical-motion, so I think you want
> to call it as little as possible.
window-body-height can be very wrong if a large image is displayed in the
buffer. Still some heuristics could be used to speed-up the most common case,
all lines being ~= (default-line-height).
>> > This doesn't support the equivalent of a nil argument, which means
>> > move by "near full screen".
>>
>> I can implement this if the overall approach gets a green light.
>
> I think we need to decide first whether the slowdown is acceptable.
> IMO it is too significant to be ignored, if we want to replace
> existing code.
I could define some limit (the pixel height of a window?), and if it was to be
exceeded, I'd fall back on the existing or similar approach. I don't know how
often people scroll several pages, but it's likely that if they do they would
value speed over accuracy.
Evgeni
bug#18923: Alternative scrolling model, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/11/02
- bug#18923: Alternative scrolling model, Stefan Monnier, 2014/11/02
- bug#18923: Alternative scrolling model, E Sabof, 2014/11/02
- bug#18923: Alternative scrolling model, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/11/02
- bug#18923: Alternative scrolling model,
E Sabof <=
- bug#18923: Alternative scrolling model, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/11/02
- bug#18923: Alternative scrolling model, E Sabof, 2014/11/02
- bug#18923: Alternative scrolling model, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/11/02
- bug#18923: Alternative scrolling model, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/11/02
Message not available