[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RMAIL slows
From: |
Robert J. Chassell |
Subject: |
Re: RMAIL slows |
Date: |
Tue, 10 May 2005 11:04:14 +0000 (UTC) |
[After running the same RMAIL for several days, deletions slow; but
they do not slow the first day.]
Success so far!
On 6 May 2005, Stefan Monnier said
Maybe we just need to make goto-address mark its overlay with the
`evaporate' propert so they disappear as soon as they beomce
empty.
and provided a patch.
Using that patch, RMAIL deletions have been fast.
At the moment, I have only 155 overlays in the RMAIL buffer rather
than the many thousands as before.
--
Robert J. Chassell
address@hidden GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc
- Re: RMAIL slows, Robert J. Chassell, 2005/05/04
- Re: RMAIL slows, Stefan Monnier, 2005/05/05
- Re: RMAIL slows, Robert J. Chassell, 2005/05/05
- Re: RMAIL slows, Kevin Rodgers, 2005/05/05
- Re: RMAIL slows, Robert J. Chassell, 2005/05/06
- Re: RMAIL slows, Stefan Monnier, 2005/05/06
- Re: RMAIL slows, Robert J. Chassell, 2005/05/06
- Re: RMAIL slows, Stefan Monnier, 2005/05/06
- Re: RMAIL slows, Robert J. Chassell, 2005/05/07
- Re: RMAIL slows,
Robert J. Chassell <=
- Should overlays evaporate by default?, Peter Whaite, 2005/05/10
- Re: Should overlays evaporate by default?, Richard Stallman, 2005/05/11
- Re: Should overlays evaporate by default?, Kim F. Storm, 2005/05/12
- Re: Should overlays evaporate by default?, Richard Stallman, 2005/05/12
- Re: Should overlays evaporate by default?, Kim F. Storm, 2005/05/13
- Re: Should overlays evaporate by default?, Richard Stallman, 2005/05/13
- Re: Should overlays evaporate by default?, Peter Whaite, 2005/05/16
- Re: Should overlays evaporate by default?, Richard Stallman, 2005/05/17
- Re: Should overlays evaporate by default?, Peter Whaite, 2005/05/17
- Re: Should overlays evaporate by default?, Richard Stallman, 2005/05/18