[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?
From: |
Simon Josefsson |
Subject: |
Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it? |
Date: |
Sun, 09 Dec 2001 13:49:31 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/21.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) |
Per Abrahamsen <address@hidden> writes:
> Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> I don't think it is worth while working on optimization in the Emacs
>> Lisp compiler. It could be an unlimited time sink, drawing effort
>> away from features that benefit the user into something users will
>> hardly notice.
...
> Also, I had to give one of the most complex options
> (nnmail-split-fancy) the customize type "sexp", because the structured
> type resulted in an unusable slow UI. And that is bound by the Lisp
> compiler.
A slow UI is very irritating for the user, and I see this from time to
time with customize so I believe it is important. But maybe the
solution should be to separate the rendering of Emacs from the single
threaded lisp enginge -- many GUI programs separate the rendering or
view aspects from the controlling part of the program. Perhaps
support for GTK gets you this?
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, (continued)
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Richard Stallman, 2001/12/10
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Sam Steingold, 2001/12/10
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Per Abrahamsen, 2001/12/11
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Sam Steingold, 2001/12/11
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Richard Stallman, 2001/12/12
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Per Abrahamsen, 2001/12/11
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Sam Steingold, 2001/12/11
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Richard Stallman, 2001/12/12
Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Richard Stallman, 2001/12/08
Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Miles Bader, 2001/12/09