"Eli Zaretskii" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], emacs-devel@gnu.org >> From: David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:38:11 +0200 >> >> > I think jit-lock-defer-time _is_ the way to avoid the slowness if >> > you are willing to see the text unfontified for a fraction of a >> > second. >> >> I think that a separate value of 0 where is one not willing to see >> text unfontified, but willing to have motion calculated with a >> still unfontified text, would make perfect sense. > > jit-lock-defer-time works by setting up an idle timer. Will > run-with-idle-timer work if you give it a zero time-out?
Without looking at the code, it would be my guess that it would currently run immediately after redisplay, whereas my suggestion for jit-lock-defer-time=0 semantics would be that it be run immediately before redisplay. > And fontification of the visible portion will take time during which > one still sees unfontified text, anyway. Not if it happens before redisplay. As I said, I think this would make perfect sense for this setting. If we want to differentiate for some reason between immediately before and immediately after redisplay, it would also be possible to use a negative value for "just before redisplay" and 0 for "just after redisplay". It would possibly make sense to implement this distinction in the context of run-with-idle-timer, and then let jit-lock-defer-time just use it by defaulting to -1. Again: I have not looked at the code. It just appears to me that this would seem sensible behavior, and it would be nice to have an option to tell jit-lock not to bother fontifying stuff unless it is actually going to display it. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
