|
From: | Dmitry Gutov |
Subject: | bug#56682: feature/improved-locked-narrowing 9dee6df39c: Reworked locked narrowing. |
Date: | Tue, 31 Jan 2023 17:58:44 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.2 |
On 31/01/2023 14:14, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2023 23:07:22 +0200 Cc: 56682@debbugs.gnu.org, gregory@heytings.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> With the previous change that Gregory had made (different limits for different features, i.e. font-lock uses much wider narrowing bounds which are also customizable) I don't have that much of a horse in that race anymore.Which change is that? I don't think I follow.
The addition of long-line-locked-narrowing-region-size, I think, separated the narrowing radius for font-lock from narrowing for the improvement of other display stuff. I could be wrong there, though.
Also note that previously, I'd never have suggested that redisplay code changes the value of font-lock-dont-widen.Hmm... not sure how is that variable related to this particular thread. Please elaborate.
If we drop the locking feature, the display engine could still apply narrowing around fontification functions (and hooks, and etc). And perhaps bind font-lock-down-widen to t. Or add a new variable, like Stefan suggested -- that would be tidier.
That would still not protect us from misbehaving modes, but modes that absolutely cannot work within a narrowing are a problem anyway.
And for the rest, we have an existing convention (discussed at length and rubber-stamped by the previous maintainer back then) that major modes shouldn't call 'widen' in font-lock-keywords. Nor in indentation code. That was part of the convention which made js-mode, python-mode, etc, work better with multil-major-mode packages, and it did.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |