[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: JIT stealth font-lock tuning parameters
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: JIT stealth font-lock tuning parameters |
Date: |
Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:24:26 -0500 |
> > (setq jit-lock-stealth-time 16)
> > (setq jit-lock-stealth-nice 0.5)
> Would you object to changing the defaults as the first approximation, and
> adding the more sophisticated operation as the second one?
I would personally find 16 seconds for jit-lock-stealth-time rather
annoying. The reason is that it makes the jit-lock-defer-contextually
refontification "very slow".
Of course, we could setup another timer just for jit-lock-defer-contextually
so we could keep 3 seconds a delay for it (it might be a good idea
to do that anyway).
Note that I find the current settings quite usable on my 266Mhz Pentium-2
so I'm not sure how important it is to change them (I'm much more
impacted by the slower redisplay and (much) slower frame-creation).
Stefan
- JIT stealth font-lock tuning parameters, Eli Zaretskii, 2001/11/11
- Re: JIT stealth font-lock tuning parameters, Richard Stallman, 2001/11/12
- Re: JIT stealth font-lock tuning parameters, Eli Zaretskii, 2001/11/12
- Re: JIT stealth font-lock tuning parameters,
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: JIT stealth font-lock tuning parameters, Eli Zaretskii, 2001/11/12
- Re: JIT stealth font-lock tuning parameters, Stefan Monnier, 2001/11/12
- Re: JIT stealth font-lock tuning parameters, Eli Zaretskii, 2001/11/12
- Re: JIT stealth font-lock tuning parameters, Stefan Monnier, 2001/11/12
- Re: JIT stealth font-lock tuning parameters, Eli Zaretskii, 2001/11/12
- Re: JIT stealth font-lock tuning parameters, Alan Shutko, 2001/11/12
- Re: JIT stealth font-lock tuning parameters, Richard Stallman, 2001/11/13
- Re: JIT stealth font-lock tuning parameters, Eli Zaretskii, 2001/11/13
- Re: JIT stealth font-lock tuning parameters, Richard Stallman, 2001/11/13
- Re: JIT stealth font-lock tuning parameters, Eli Zaretskii, 2001/11/14