[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: XKCD/541 compliance, anyone?
From: |
Marcin Borkowski |
Subject: |
Re: XKCD/541 compliance, anyone? |
Date: |
Thu, 08 Jan 2015 02:09:43 +0100 |
On 2015-01-07, at 23:37, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
>> Now this question remains: how to ensure that syntax-propertize is
>> getting called everywhere?
>
> Depends what you mean by "everywhere". It "should" be called internally
Everywhere in the buffer.
> by things like forward-sexp, but currently isn't.
> What you can do is something like
>
> (jit-lock-register (lambda (from to) (syntax-propertize to)) t)
>
> [ This needs to be called individually in each buffer. ]
> It will make sure that all the visible text has been syntax-propertized,
> regardless of font-lock-mode.
Do I get it correctly that it's better than my solution (basically,
(syntax-propertize (point-max))) because it is faster for large buffer
("lazy smilification";-))?
And "calling in each buffer" will probably mean installing it in the
hook for modes I want it to work in.
(BTW, I love the fact that in the above sentence the closing paren of
the smiley is /not/ treated as the counterpart of the opening paren at
the beginning of the line. Now that smileys start to "work" for me, I'm
going to use them more often :-) :-) ;-P).
> Stefan
Thanks a lot
--
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University
Re: XKCD/541 compliance, anyone?, Marcin Borkowski, 2015/01/02
Re: XKCD/541 compliance, anyone?, Marcin Borkowski, 2015/01/07
- Re: XKCD/541 compliance, anyone?, Stefan Monnier, 2015/01/07
- Re: XKCD/541 compliance, anyone?,
Marcin Borkowski <=
- Re: XKCD/541 compliance, anyone?, Stefan Monnier, 2015/01/07
- Re: XKCD/541 compliance, anyone?, Marcin Borkowski, 2015/01/07
- Message not available
- Re: XKCD/541 compliance, anyone?, Stefan Monnier, 2015/01/07
- Re: XKCD/541 compliance, anyone?, Marcin Borkowski, 2015/01/08