[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lazy-lock vs. jit-lock
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: lazy-lock vs. jit-lock |
Date: |
Thu, 29 Dec 2005 14:18:05 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
>> If those parts are displayed and yet they're not fontified it's a bug which
>> you should report via M-x report-emacs-bug.
> This is the case. I'll do a bug report ... but this involves my own mode
> and a not exactly mainstream language, so I wonder how far it will get me.
External code is OK. Of course the more self-contained the recipe, the
better. Also a good description of the faulty behavior (what you have to do
to cause it, how it manifests itself, ...) is sometimes enough to understand
the problem (without reproducing it ourselves).
> The fact that jit-lock interacts with Emacs C code is not encouraging,
> I fear I will be asked to gdb Emacs which I won't.
We may ask you to debug it, but you don't have to do it.
>> Lazy-lock has some known bugs (I remember some missing on-screen
>> fontification using outline-minor-mode, for example), >is less efficient<
> Can you expand on the last point? What makes lazy-lock less efficient?
lazy-lock tries to guess which part of the buffer is displayed, based on
various pieces of information. But those guesses take work and are
necessarily conservative. jit-lock on the other hand gets this info from
the horse's mouth without any effort.
Stefan
- Re: lazy-lock vs. jit-lock, (continued)
Re: lazy-lock vs. jit-lock, shreevatsa, 2005/12/29
Re: lazy-lock vs. jit-lock, rgb, 2005/12/29
Re: lazy-lock vs. jit-lock, Stefan Monnier, 2005/12/29