[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Long lines and bidi

From: Paul Eggert
Subject: Re: Long lines and bidi
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 01:05:01 -0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2

On 02/09/2013 12:46 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 25% faster is still terribly slow for redisplay.

Yes, as I said, it doesn't solve the performance problem.
Still, it doesn't complicate the code, and it significantly
improves speed in code likely to be executed often, so it
seems worth doing in its own right.

> I don't understand why you removed the TARGET argument of
> scan_buffer.  The fact that all its callers use it for looking for a
> newline doesn't mean it cannot be used otherwise.

If we ever need that ability we can put it back in.  In the meantime
there's no need for the generality and I found it confusing.

> At the very least, the name of the function should be
> changed to reflect the change.

Sure, what name do you suggest?  scan_newline is already taken.
Perhaps scan_buffer_newline?

This area is a bit messed up, unfortunately -- scan_newline has
comments saying that it looks for carriage return (!) but
it does not in fact do that.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]