Actually, it's not clear to me what's the utility for the help spans
on individual script items.

What happens in old PG is that each script item gets a help span, but
once a proof is completed, there's another help span that covers the
entire proof. If you choose Hide from its context menu, the entire
proof is hidden. Before the proof is completed, you can hide an
individual tactic call -- not sure why you'd do that -- but you don't
seem to able to show it again (a bug, apparently). The only other
items on the context menu for an individual script item are Undo and
Copy, which you can already do in other ways. For help spans
associated with proofs, there are Print and Check menu items.

Would it make sense to omit the help spans on individual items, and
just have the help spans for proofs and sections? That would give
decent speedup, at only a small cost (so I claim) of functionality.

-- Paul




On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Paul A. Steckler <st...@stecksoft.com> wrote:
> I just ran the experiment of setting the properties used in the
> helphighlight spans in the vanilla spans.
>
> All works well, until you try to hide a span. Indeed, the span gets
> hidden, using the 'invisible property. If you want to show it again,
> you no longer get the context menu ... because the span is hidden.
>
> Also, I've found there's some other functionality associated with the
> helphighlights spans. In the old PG, there were special "goalsave"
> spans, which I had thought existed because old versions of Coq did not
> allow single-step undo. I've discovered that there are helphighlight
> spans for proofs and sections, so you can hide them. I suppose I'll
> have to work to restore this functionality. Of course, adding these
> spans again will take additional run time.
>
> -- Paul
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Clément Pit--Claudel
> <clement....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Great news :)
>>
>> On 2017-02-24 12:02, Paul A. Steckler wrote:
>>> And I can confirm it's the span-making that takes the time.
>>>
>>> If I set the properties on the existing vanilla span, the time is
>>> about the same as just returning nil.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Paul A. Steckler <st...@stecksoft.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Clément Pit--Claudel
>>>> <clement....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> A wild guess: the extra runtime is due to adding extra overlays.  This 
>>>>> was needed in the original PG since there may not have been another 
>>>>> overlay covering exactly that region (because the locked region was one 
>>>>> large overlay).  But since there now is one overlay per small processed 
>>>>> region, that overlay can be reused in pg-set-span-helphighlights.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that correct?
>>>>
>>>> I think you're right that it's the span creation is what adds the most 
>>>> time.
>>>>
>>>> In the original PG, there was already a span for each script item with
>>>> the "type" property set to "vanilla". Those spans have links to the
>>>> helphighlight spans. The helphighlight spans basically cover the same
>>>> piece of text as the vanilla spans, except for any whitespace on the
>>>> ends.
>>>>
>>>> In PG/xml, I'm already trimming any whitespace at the start of the
>>>> vanilla spans, because those are the spans that get colors, otherwise
>>>> the coloring looks bad. It may be possible to reuse the vanilla spans
>>>> to contain the properties that were being set in the helphighlight
>>>> spans. There is one call that also sets a face for these spans, which
>>>> may clobber a face that's already been set.
>>>>
>>>> Making this change may simplify the code in other ways. Currently,
>>>> there are separate calls to delete the vanilla spans and to delete the
>>>> helphighlight spans. In one instance, there's a call to delete the
>>>> vanilla spans, but not the helphighlight spans (in
>>>> `proof-script-clear-queue-spans-on-error'); I don't understand why
>>>> you'd delete just the vanilla spans.
>>>>
>>>> The helphighlight spans have modification hooks that delete them. If
>>>> we reused the vanilla spans, we could add a modification hook that
>>>> just removes the added properties.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2017-02-23 17:14, Paul A. Steckler wrote:
>>>>>> In my PG/xml fork, the Elisp profiler indicates the most expensive
>>>>>> procedure is `proof-done-advancing-other' (about 12% of the CPU
>>>>>> cycles). Most of the time in that procedure is allotted to
>>>>>> `pg-set-span-helphighlights'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That procedure creates a daughter span with a context menu. In vanilla
>>>>>> PG, it looks like the context menu also contains the last response
>>>>>> from Coq. In PG/xml, that's not so useful, since the last response is
>>>>>> an XML blob.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The context menu has a Show/Hide menu item. I suppose that can be
>>>>>> useful. There's also a Copy menu item, but of course you can use
>>>>>> ordinary Emacs commands for that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do we know if this functionality is widely-used? How grievous would it
>>>>>> be if I removed it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Paul
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> ProofGeneral-devel mailing list
>>>>>> ProofGeneral-devel@inf.ed.ac.uk
>>>>>> http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/proofgeneral-devel
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> ProofGeneral-devel mailing list
>>>>> ProofGeneral-devel@inf.ed.ac.uk
>>>>> http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/proofgeneral-devel
>>>
>>
_______________________________________________
ProofGeneral-devel mailing list
ProofGeneral-devel@inf.ed.ac.uk
http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/proofgeneral-devel

Reply via email to