> Your patch looks fine. > > One question remains: > Why do you think that tla--buffers-tree-remove is too slow? > > Is it, because the code looks to inefficient - I agree here
Yes, I think the double dolist are inefficient. However, I have to say that my patch is not so different from the double dolist. > Or are some operations too slow? How often is tla--buffers-tree-remove > called? In addition I found tla--buffers-tree-remove was called so many times yesterday. I had more than 5 tla-inventory buffers at least on a single emacs process. I killed the process therefore I lost elp-results output. ... After inspecting more, it seems that tla--buffers-tree-remove is not a bottle-neck. Please forget my last patch. I found `pp-to-string' used in `tla--log-printer-print-buffer` is a bottle-neck. I have added extra code to avoid using `pp-to-string'. Try [EMAIL PROTECTED] Masatake YAMATO
