[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Sun, 25 Nov 2001 20:57:29 -0800 (PST)
I guess your computer is much faster than mine, or you have not edited
relatively large cells. Anyway, I agree that separating the timers
for two distinctly different purposes is a good idea. To tell you the
truth the current single timer implementation is simply due to my
laziness and for me it has been practically good enough. I'll let you
test the revised version once I get it done.
BTW, how can I join address@hidden mailing list?
From: Miles Bader <address@hidden>
Date: 26 Nov 2001 10:19:33 +0900
Subject: Re: table.el
> One big problem I noticed is that `table-time-before-update' is used all
> the time, even if doesn't have to be.
> If I'm typing in the middle of a table cell, then the characters are
> displayed a long time after I type them, which is very annoying -- but I
> can get nice behavior by simply setting `table-time-before-update' to 0.
> However, setting it to 0 causes bad behavior when some more expensive
> operation needs to be done, for instance, when it needs to make a table
> cell wider/taller because I've typed past the edge.
> What would be nice is if there were _two_ delay variables, one for `simple'
> operations (e.g., inserting text where no change in the table size is
> required), and one for `expensive' operations (inserting text when a size
> change _is_ required). Perhaps the former is not necessary at all, and
> could be simply assumed to be 0 (but I suppose that it might still be
> necessary for very slow systems).
> `Cars give people wonderful freedom and increase their opportunities.
> But they also destroy the environment, to an extent so drastic that
> they kill all social life' (from _A Pattern Language_)
Re: table.el, Alex Schroeder, 2001/11/24
table.el, Tak Ota, 2001/11/28