[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu |
Date: |
Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:45:55 -0400 |
Another possibility would be to check the sign of their difference
instead of comparing them directly.
Then wraparound is not a problem, instead one of them has to have
moved more than half the total range away from the other before things
get ugly.
It might happen less often, but if people really edit a buffer enough
to make the count wrap around, they could do so without saving it,
and this change wouldn't help in such a case.
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, (continued)
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, martin rudalics, 2006/07/23
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, Richard Stallman, 2006/07/24
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, martin rudalics, 2006/07/26
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, Stefan Monnier, 2006/07/26
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, martin rudalics, 2006/07/26
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, Stefan Monnier, 2006/07/27
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, Richard Stallman, 2006/07/26
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, David Kastrup, 2006/07/26
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, Richard Stallman, 2006/07/27
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, David Kastrup, 2006/07/27
- Re: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu,
Richard Stallman <=
RE: jit lock sit-for provokes redisplay provokes imenu, Marshall, Simon, 2006/07/26