[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Blink cursor changes, possible W32 breakage.

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Blink cursor changes, possible W32 breakage.
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 05:44:56 +0300

> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 18:40:42 -0400
> >> >> AFAIK, and I expect that fairly few users use the features that
> >> >> require timers (jit-lock-stealth and jit-lock-defer).
> >> > I expect most of them do use timer-dependent features all the time.
> >> Why?
> > You didn't give any reasons for your assertions, either.
> No, indeed, but they're not activated unless the user asks for
> it explicitly.

I don't see how this is relevant.  Are we going to tell users not to
enable features if they want Emacs to be friendly to the batteries?
That's not going to happen.

> Also jit-lock-stealth used to be enabled by default but was disabled
> because too many people found it problematic, so only those people
> who don't care about high/excessive background CPU usage will have
> it enabled.

JIT Stealth has a variable to limit the system load it imposes; mine
is set to 20%.

reply via email to

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