Re: Reducing the number of '*lock|shot*' packages
>>>> "Charles" == Charles G Waldman
<cgw(a)alum.mit.edu> writes:
Charles> Raymond Toy writes:
> I vaguely remember someone saying lazy-lock is deprecated
because
> lazy-shot did everything lazy-lock did and better. At least that's
> what motivated me to use lazy-shot way back when.
>
> My major complaint is that lazy-shot doesn't fontify as well as it
> used to and now frequently makes mistakes when comment markers (like
> #| in lisp) don't fit entirely within the window. It seems this
> happened right after the great syntax modification.
Charles> This is my point - the number of XEmacs maintainer-hours is a limited
Charles> resource, and the more almost-the-same-but-slightly-different packages
Charles> we have, the more thinly spread the maintenance becomes, so that instead
Charles> of one really good font-locker we have 4 divergent buggy ones.
I agree with your sentiment. I just might not agree on which one to
get rid of! :-)
Is font-lock actually buggy? Haven't used that in ages.
Charles> Maybe I'm spoiled by access to fast hardware, and maybe I am not
being
Charles> sensitive enough to the needs of users who do not have such machines,
Actually, even on my relatively old Ultra 30 or my old 200 MHz PC,
font-lock on emacs.c isn't annoyingly slow. I don't look at source
much larger than emacs.c. My own files are much smaller. :-)
Charles> but it seems like the way to "fix" lazy-shot is with
"rm".
Well, it used to work quite well until the syntax changes, so I think
the syntax changes should be fixed. :-)
Ray