In fact, there is some performance issue. The steal function copies a lot of variables as I can tell. Do you know where those variables are used? I replaced the steal function with an advice like this
(defadvice org-capture-steal-local-variables (around do-not-steal activate)) My capture became very fast after that and I didn't notice any adverse effects so far (using this for more than a week). The only reason I didn't propose a patch like this is that I am still testing it for possible regressions. On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Bastien <b...@gnu.org> wrote: > Hi Alex, > > Alex Kosorukoff <a...@3form.com> writes: > > > Excluding mark-active will work, the result will be the same as after > > my patch, except performance will not be the same. Excluding variable > > requires filtering the list of variables which takes O(n) whereas my > > patch takes O(1). Mark-active is nil before > > org-capture-steal-local-variables because this is a new buffer. It > > seems in this case setting it back to nil is faster than trying to > > preserve its original value nil. > > I see what you mean but there is no performance issue here and not > copying the value of mark-active is cleaner than setting it back to > nil -- we never want to copy the value of the mark at all. > > -- > Bastien >
