emacs-orgmode
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ANN] faster org-table-to-lisp


From: tbanelwebmin
Subject: Re: [ANN] faster org-table-to-lisp
Date: Fri, 1 May 2020 14:41:21 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1

Le 01/05/2020 à 12:15, Nicolas Goaziou a écrit :

> Hello,
>
> tbanelwebmin <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Nicolas, how did you do that? Your version is 25% faster than mine,
>> and the code is 33% shorter! Very elegant.
> Thank you. There's nothing fancy, really.
>
> The main difference is that it does not call `org-table-end'. Minor
> tweaks are:
>
> - use simpler regexps,
> - call `skip-chars-forward' whenever possible.

I realized that not calling `org-table-end' may cause a corner case:

| 2 | b |
| c | d |
#+TBLFM: @1$1=2||3

is read as:
(("2" "b") ("c" "d") ("" "3"))
because of the "|" just below the table.

This can be fixed by changing the ending condition from
  (while (search-forward "|" (line-end-position) t)
to
  (while (re-search-forward "^[ \t]*|" (line-end-position) t)

Not a big deal.

>> Sorry, I may not understood what you said:
>> = Since you're changing the signature, I suggest to provide the table
>> = element instead of ORG-AT-TABLE-P. AFAICT, `org-babel-read-element',
>> = through `org-babel-read-table', would greatly benefit from this.
>>
>> Could you elaborate (if still relevant)?
> If you know the table ELEMENT, you don't need to check if you're at
> a table, nor do you need to compute table boundaries. We could have made
> use of this information to avoid a call to `org-at-table-p', much like
> your initial intent.
>
> Thinking about it, we don't even need to call `org-at-table-p' at all.
> Indeed, this is a low-level, non-interactive, function. We can
> reasonably expect the callers to check if they are really at a table in
> the first place.
>
> It would increase speed for this function noticeably, and the ELEMENT
> argument would not be relevant anymore.
>
> WDYT?

I do agree. We can expect callers to be on a table. If they are not,
they will get `nil', and instantly notice it.

>> The side effect of `re-search-forward' was to advance point, while
>> `looking-at' don't move.
> Ah true. I overlooked that.
>
> Regards,
> -- 
> Nicolas Goaziou
>
Have fun,
Thierry Banel




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]