Re: Reducing the number of '*lock|shot*' packages

>>>>> "Charles" == Charles G Waldman <cgw(a)alum.mit.edu&gt; 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