[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 18:42:10 +0300

> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 03:45:50 -0400
> >> No, indeed, but they're not activated unless the user asks for
> >> it explicitly.
> > I don't see how this is relevant.
> It's relevant because most optional features are turned off.

Don't we care about optional features anymore, if, when turned on,
they cause trouble?  Don't we want users to be able to turn those
optional features on without suffering adverse consequences that we
can prevent?

> > 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.
> jit-lock-stealth is pretty clearly battery unfriendly.  It's in its nature.

Any program, when it works and burns CPU cycles, is battery
unfriendly.  The issue we are discussing here is whether it would be a
good idea to turn such features off under some conditions.

> Yes, we did try to make jit-lock-stealth work acceptably, but after many
> attempts, we chose to turn it off instead because there's always some
> situation where it consumes a lot more CPU than what you'd want.

Not here, it doesn't.

reply via email to

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