[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: locked narrowing in ELisp

From: Po Lu
Subject: Re: locked narrowing in ELisp
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2022 13:59:31 +0800
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.91 (gnu/linux)

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> The new "fast long-lines" code uses a "locked narrowing" to try and
> avoid being defeated by naive font-lock (and other) code.
> This is a good heuristic to try and make sure Emacs stays responsive
> even in the presence of naive packages not designed for such long lines.
> Beside the need to override this in those rare packages where we can
> provide better behavior with careful coding, the new code also lacks
> a way to install such a locked narrowing from ELisp, even though it
> seems only natural to use similar heuristics from ELisp code (e.g. when
> jit-lock is run from a timer).
> But as pointed out by Lars, this is related to the old discussion about
> "classifying" narrowing, so as to distinguish narrowings installed by
> the user via `C-x n n` from those installed by packages like MMM-mode or
> Info-mode (or nowadays those installed by the redisplay).
> These distinctions are important because various code may need to look
> "outside" of those narrowings in some circumstances, but which "outside"
> to use depends on the particular situation.
> We've discussed it in the past and I still don't know what would be
> a good API, but one particular class of `widen` which is known to be
> used within narrowings that should *not* be overridden is those `widen`
> calls used in "parsers" that try to understand the context of
> an operation.
> Those `widen` will sometimes be used in circumstances where they may
> actually want to *narrow* rather than widen (e.g. the narrowing might be
> needed to make sure the parser only looks at the part of the buffer that
> it can understand (e.g. in MMM-mode), or it might be needed in order to
> avoid the risk of spending an eternity parsing GBs of text (at the cost
> of misparsing in too-large buffers)).
> Last time we discussed these issues, we ended up deciding that
> indentation (like font-lock before it) should "eagerly widen" (i.e. undo
> any user-setup narrowing) before calling the mode-specific code.
> This way, the indentation and font-lock code of a major mode should
> simply never need to call `widen` and things like the MMM-mode (or the
> long-lines code in redisplay) can just setup the narrowing before
> calling that major mode code without any need to "label" the narrowing.
> This was an elegant solution, but it seems to be too limited, because
> the parsing code that want(ed) to `widen` is typically also called from
> other parts of the major mode than the indentation or font-lock code.
> In the past, we played with having a new widening function (there was
> a `prog-widen` briefly in `prog-mode.el`).  Maybe we should
> (re)introduce such a thing (or maybe an optional arg to `widen` which
> would indicate what "kind" of widening we want to do), coupled with some
> kind of `widen-function` which MMM-mode and the redisplay could
> setup to filter/tweak those widening.
> Within an MMM-mode or "redisplay locked narrowing", we *generally* want
> `widen` not to widen past the limits imposed by MMM or by the redisplay,
> but there will be cases where we do want to allow it (e.g. in
> `nlinum-mode` the widening will usually want to be allowed to override
> those narrowings in order to compute the right line number), so we
> clearly not all calls to `widen` are the same.

FWIW, I've already see a workaround in the wild (well, if my job counts
as "wild"), which is to use an indirect buffer to access contents
outside of the "locked narrowing", should widen fail to widen

reply via email to

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