2:39 a.m.
Vin, what's your sense on enabling font-lock by default in future
21.4?
Jason Spiro writes:
OK, would one of these alternatives work?
1) always using lazy-lock, or
I don't know that lazy-lock is the preferred alternative. There are
at least three candidates, fast-lock, lazy-lock, and lazy-shot. If
somebody will review them, and we can poll the users for their
opinions, I guess that would be enough to make a choice.
If you would be willing to post a poll to comp.emacs.xemacs and
xemacs-beta, that would get things moving. Also a call for volunteers
to present a technical review of the available alternatives. I'll do
it "eventually" if not, but there are other things I need to do first.
2) using vanilla font-lock on most files but lazy-lock on large
files, or
3) merging some code from GNU Emacs
This would be nice in the long run (for one example, nXML-mode is
heavily dependent on divergent APIs) but is presumably not an option
for 21.4, as GNU's code is totally different now AIUI.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
7 p.m.
New subject: Why not enable font lock by default?
2007/7/23, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
[snip]
There are
at least three candidates, fast-lock, lazy-lock, and lazy-shot. If
somebody will review them, and we can poll the users for their
opinions, I guess that would be enough to make a choice.
If you would be willing to post a poll to comp.emacs.xemacs and
xemacs-beta, that would get things moving.
I will post a poll to the newsgroup. But is polling the developer
mailing list really worthwhile? I think we should go with whatever
the users prefer, not the developers.
Also a call for volunteers
to present a technical review of the available alternatives. I'll do
it "eventually" if not, but there are other things I need to do first.
I will start an EmacsWiki page at
http://www.emacswiki.org/wiki/XEmacsFontificationSystems instead.
Let's use that to get a summary of pros and cons written, OK? The
page will be up in a few minutes.
Cheers,
Jason
--
Jason Spiro: Linux consultant, web developer, Windows corporate trainer.
No job too big or too small, whether two hours or two months.
Contact me for info; to see my resume, send email with subject line "resume".
+1.416.668.1491 / Email: info(a)jspiro.com / MSN: jasonspiro(a)hotmail.com
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
1 a.m.
New subject: Why not enable font lock by default?
2007/7/23, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
[snip]
If you would be willing to post a poll to comp.emacs.xemacs and
xemacs-beta, that would get things moving.
Done. It is "Poll and discussion: Which do you prefer: fast-lock,
lazy-lock, or lazy-shot?" at
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.emacs.xemacs/browse_thread/thread/58a...
Let me know when you want the summary of emailed votes. (Note though
that after 4 hours I've so far not gotten any emailed votes.)
Also a call for volunteers
to present a technical review of the available alternatives.
[snip]
I posted a variant of your idea. See "Which font-lock speedup system
should XEmacs use by default? Also please help us fill comparison wiki
page." at
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.emacs.xemacs/browse_thread/thread/b91...
but it seems nobody has edited the wiki page yet.
Cheers,
Jason
--
Jason Spiro: Linux consultant, web developer, Windows corporate trainer.
No job too big or too small, whether two hours or two months.
Contact me for info; to see my resume, send email with subject line "resume".
+1.416.668.1491 / Email: info(a)jspiro.com / MSN: jasonspiro(a)hotmail.com
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
1 a.m.
New subject: Why not enable font lock by default?
2007/7/24, I myself wrote:
2007/7/23, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
[snip]
> If you would be willing to post a poll to comp.emacs.xemacs and
> xemacs-beta, that would get things moving.
Done. It is "Poll and discussion: Which do you prefer: fast-lock,
lazy-lock, or lazy-shot?" at
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.emacs.xemacs/browse_thread/thread/58a...
...
Followup to the above message from a few months ago:
There was no consensus on the Usenet thread. Also, nobody sent me
anything by private mail.
It seems that not enough people care about nominating a certain one of
the alternatives. So I propose a radical idea. Stephen, since you
are a fine developer, I nominate you: I think that you should choose
a system yourself and send a small patch to list to enable your
favorite system by default. If nobody complains, commit the patch.
If someone complains, tell them to post an email poll themselves, or
to spend the time to set up an online poll on the www.xemacs.org
homepage.
All, what do you think?
Cheers,
Jason
--
Jason Spiro: corporate trainer, web developer, IT consultant.
I support Linux, UNIX, Windows, and more.
Contact me to discuss your needs and get a free estimate.
+1 (613) 668-6096 / Email: info(a)jspiro.com / MSN: jasonspiro(a)hotmail.com
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
2:55 p.m.
New subject: Why not enable font lock by default?
2007/7/24, I myself wrote:
2007/7/23, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
[snip]
> If you would be willing to post a poll to comp.emacs.xemacs and
> xemacs-beta, that would get things moving.
Done. It is "Poll and discussion: Which do you prefer: fast-lock,
lazy-lock, or lazy-shot?" at
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.emacs.xemacs/browse_thread/thread/58a...
...
OK, it has been a few months since I posted the poll above. There
were 7 replies, but no consensus emerged. Nobody sent me anything by
private mail.
It seems that not enough people care about which of the 3 alternatives
is chosen. I bet any of the three would make a fine choice, and would
definitely be better than the current default (no font-lock at all).
So I propose a radical idea. Stephen, since you are a fine developer,
I nominate you: I think that you should choose a system yourself.
Let me know and I will send the list a small patch to list to enable
your favorite system by default. If nobody complains, commit the
patch. If someone complains, tell them to post an email poll
themselves, or to spend the time to set up an online poll on the
www.xemacs.org homepage. :-)
All, what do you think of having this patch be written by a single developer?
Cheers,
Jason
--
Jason Spiro: corporate trainer, web developer, IT consultant.
I support Linux, UNIX, Windows, and more.
Contact me to discuss your needs and get a free estimate.
+1 (613) 668-6096 / Email: info(a)jspiro.com / MSN: jasonspiro(a)hotmail.com
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
9:12 a.m.
New subject: Why not enable font lock by default?
All, what do you think of having this patch be written by a single
developer?
That's cruel.
I don't think you're ever going to find consensus on this issue.
-sb (fastlock ftw)
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
3:31 p.m.
New subject: Why not enable font lock by default?
>>>> "SL" == SL Baur <steve(a)xemacs.org>
writes:
> All, what do you think of having this patch be written by a
> single developer?
That's cruel.
I don't think you're ever going to find consensus on this
issue.
-sb (fastlock ftw)
Well I use x-symbol a lot and found out all the three behaved
differently and for me the only option was/is
lazy-shot.
Lazy-lock is ok but sometimes caused problems and
fastlock was worse.
The point is that x-symbol de and encodes certain latex symbols
so that they are presented via the correct font in a WYSIWYG form.
However sometimes these symbols get corrupted especially under
fastlock (or the whole buffer almost freezed.)
Uwe Brauer
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
3:11 p.m.
New subject: Why not enable font lock by default?
2007/7/24, I myself wrote:
2007/7/23, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
[snip]
> If you would be willing to post a poll to comp.emacs.xemacs and
> xemacs-beta, that would get things moving.
Done. It is "Poll and discussion: Which do you prefer: fast-lock,
lazy-lock, or lazy-shot?" at
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.emacs.xemacs/browse_thread/thread/58a...
...
OK, it has been a few months since I posted the poll above. There
were 7 replies, but no consensus emerged. Nobody sent me anything by
private mail.
It seems that not enough people care about which of the 3 alternatives
is chosen. I bet any of the three would make a fine choice, and would
definitely be better than the current default (no font-lock at all).
So I propose a radical idea. Stephen, since you are a fine developer,
I nominate you: I think that you should choose a system yourself.
Let me know and I will send the list a small patch to list to enable
your favorite system by default. If nobody complains, commit the
patch. If someone complains, tell them to post an email poll
themselves, or to spend the time to set up an online poll on the
www.xemacs.org homepage. :-)
All, what do you think of having this patch be written by a single developer?
Cheers,
Jason
--
Jason Spiro: corporate trainer, web developer, IT consultant.
I support Linux, UNIX, Windows, and more.
Contact me to discuss your needs and get a free estimate.
+1 (613) 668-6096 / Email: info(a)jspiro.com / MSN: jasonspiro(a)hotmail.com
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
6043
days inactive
6115
days old
7 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Jason A. Spiro -
Jason Spiro -
SL Baur -
Stephen J. Turnbull -
Uwe Brauer