Hrvoje> Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof(a)math.ethz.ch&gt; writes: Hrvoje> Not really (although it may look that way at the start). Hrvoje> The font-lock code wants to apply certain properties to Hrvoje> parts of the buffer, merging or breaking the extents as Hrvoje> needed. This is exactly what the text-properties are for. SJT> Could you be more specific? The documentation says something SJT> quite different: text-properties are for attaching properties SJT> to characters rather than intervals. CW> That's exactly what font-lock is supposed to do: attaching CW> faces to characters matched by specific (parts of) font-lock CW> keywords. My point, and I believe Jan's, is that the part of a keyword that a character matches is the character itself. We don't want characters that match characters in keywords fontified, we want _intervals_ that match _whole_ keywords (modulo leading and trailing context) fontified. Which sounds a lot like extents to me, and to Jan. SJT> That seems like exactly the _wrong_ thing to do with strings SJT> and comments, both of which should be locked up in an SJT> unbreakable (from the point of view of font-lock) extent once SJT> identified; CW> There are not such things like unbreakable extents in CW> font-lock: parts of previously fontified characters can get For my preferences, not in a string or comment. Why aren't there unbreakable extents? CW> additional/new face properties, etc. In fact, two extents are CW> "glumped" if appropriate, e.g., for a TeX sequence like CW> \alpha\beta. Sure. I wasn't talking about things like that, I was talking about strings and comments, which are syntactically single units but can easily contain whole instances of other keywords. For that reason parsing them again could be expensive. Why not just skip them? Extents, not character properties, are the right way to do that. I don't know that this observation can be translated into an optimization of the fontification algorithm, but I would like it explained why looking at characters one-by-one is a better match to the majority of fontification operations. SJT> the individual characters in them should never be considered SJT> "locally". CW> ??? Ie, I personally do not (in C) want the word "for" in /* This comment is for example. */ fontified as a C keyword, although I can imagine someone who might (because they would want the "for" in /* Comment explaining a for loop */ fontified as a keyword), and I can't even imagine anyone who would want that same word fontified as a C keyword in printf("This output is for example."); Given that, I don't see why fontlock should _ever again_ look inside those extents unless they are edited. Ie, from fontlock's point of view they should be considered atomic. "Been there, done that, OK, let's hurry on to the next task." -- University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences Tel/fax: +1 (298) 53-5091