On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:08:58PM +0000, Antony Scriven wrote: > On May 24, Frew Schmidt wrote: > > > [...] > > > > Maybe a dumb question, but why would BufNew be more expensive > > than BufRead? Shouldn't the filetype stuff get run either way? > > I wouldn't expect BufRead to take 500ms and BufNew to take > > multiple seconds, would you? > > The bufnew autocommands happen all at once. Change your autocommand > to this instead: > > au bufnew *.md echo 'markdown bufnew' > au bufread *.md echo 'markdown bufread' > > Then :args * and see what happens. > > I think you should still remove the 'BufNew' from your autocommand > (Christian's helpful-looking patch notwithstanding). I can't see > what purpose it serves other than to detect name changes. If that's > a real requirement, there's buffilepost. --Antony
Ok so the BufNew's happen at *allocation* time, where the BufRead's happen when you actually pull up the buffer. That makes sense. Thanks, that explains a lot. Yeah the BufNew was definitely cargo-cult and I'll remove it, but it just seemed weird that it would cause this kind of slowdown. -- fREW Schmidt https://blog.afoolishmanifesto.com -- -- You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
