[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A proposal for the future of open-paren-in-column-0-is-defun-start.
From: |
Alan Mackenzie |
Subject: |
Re: A proposal for the future of open-paren-in-column-0-is-defun-start. |
Date: |
Sun, 5 Apr 2020 15:23:33 +0000 |
Hello, Stefan.
On Sun, Apr 05, 2020 at 10:33:17 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > With this mechanism in place, o-p-i-c-0-i-d-s could safely be left
> > enabled, for speed's sake,
> FWIW setting `comment-use-syntax-ppss` to nil is likely make things
> *slower* in many cases.
Anyhow, the problem with using syntax-ppss here is it involves lots and
lots of scanning over large buffer portions in certain circumstances.
The o-p-i-c-0-i-d-s approach wouldn't.
Also, syntax-ppss doesn't (necessarily) do the right thing on narrowed
buffers, thus potentially leading to errors. Why don't you make sure
the buffer is widened before using syntax-ppss?
> This "newish" variable was only introduced so as to have an escape hatch
> if it turned out that the new functionality of relying on syntax-ppss
> proved problematic.
Why is the o-p-i-c-0-i-d-s mechanism made dependent on
comment-use-syntax-ppss being nil?
> Given that I haven't seen a single incident reported since that fateful
> Dec 12 2017 night, I think we'd be better off removing
> `comment-use-syntax-ppss` altogether.
Er, Martin reported a delay of 10 seconds when scrolling a buffer with
the mouse wheel. How does that not cound as an "incident"?
What you mean by your suggestion is to remove
open-paren-in-column-0-is-defun start altogether.
Both Martin and Richard, who have less powerful machines than we do, are
unhappy about this.
Anyway, what exactly happened on 2017-12-12 that qualifies as a fateful
incident?
Also, you haven't commented on my proposal.
> Stefan
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
- A proposal for the future of open-paren-in-column-0-is-defun-start., Alan Mackenzie, 2020/04/05
- Re: A proposal for the future of open-paren-in-column-0-is-defun-start., Stefan Monnier, 2020/04/05
- Re: A proposal for the future of open-paren-in-column-0-is-defun-start.,
Alan Mackenzie <=
- Re: A proposal for the future of open-paren-in-column-0-is-defun-start., Richard Stallman, 2020/04/05
- Re: A proposal for the future of open-paren-in-column-0-is-defun-start., Stefan Monnier, 2020/04/06
- Re: A proposal for the future of open-paren-in-column-0-is-defun-start., Eli Zaretskii, 2020/04/06
- Re: A proposal for the future of open-paren-in-column-0-is-defun-start., Stefan Monnier, 2020/04/06
- Re: A proposal for the future of open-paren-in-column-0-is-defun-start., Eli Zaretskii, 2020/04/06
- Re: A proposal for the future of open-paren-in-column-0-is-defun-start., Stefan Monnier, 2020/04/06
- Re: A proposal for the future of open-paren-in-column-0-is-defun-start., Eli Zaretskii, 2020/04/06
- Re: A proposal for the future of open-paren-in-column-0-is-defun-start., andres . ramirez, 2020/04/06
- Re: A proposal for the future of open-paren-in-column-0-is-defun-start., martin rudalics, 2020/04/07