n> Well, is it? It looks like lazy-lock has all the same capabilities. n> If this is really true, I suggest that loading lazy-shot should warn n> the user. It's my recollection that lazy-shot came *after* lazy-lock - in fact, I thought it was "lazy-lock done right", at least according to whoever wrote lazy-shot, I guess. :) ah, take a look at this from lazy-lock: ;;; Commentary: ;; This version of Lazy Lock has special modifications for XEmacs by Ben Wing ;; that have never been merged into the FSF's version. The FSF version ;; supports GNU Emacs only, and relies on C support that is extremely ;; kludgy and not supported by XEmacs. This version uses `pre-idle-hook' ;; instead. ;; For reasons that are not at all clear to me, someone went ahead and ;; created another lazy fontification package for XEmacs (lazy-shot). ;; That package relies on the extent property `initial-redisplay-function', ;; which would not be so bad except that the implementation of this ;; function is broken in that the function is called through an eval ;; event, which is executed *after* redisplay. Thus, horrible redisplay ;; flashing. To fix this, let the function be called at pre-idle-hook ;; time. In any event, I've been using lazy-shot every day for years... if it's deprecated, that's certainly news to me... I'm perfectly happy with it. -- John A. Turner, Ph.D. Senior Research Associate Blue Sky Studios, 44 S. Broadway, White Plains, NY 10601 http://www.blueskystudios.com/ (914) 259-6319