Re: JIT stealth font-lock tuning parameters

[Eli Zaretskii]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Stefan Monnier wrote:

> > >      (setq jit-lock-stealth-time 16)
> > >      (setq jit-lock-stealth-nice 0.5)
> > Would you object to changing the defaults as the first approximation, and 
> > adding the more sophisticated operation as the second one?
> 
> I would personally find 16 seconds for jit-lock-stealth-time rather
> annoying.  The reason is that it makes the jit-lock-defer-contextually
> refontification "very slow".

The logic behind that is that, as long as you type, the syntax of the 
modified text can not be trusted.  If you don't consider short breaks as 
``real'' idleness, the effect on jit-lock-defer-contextually should not 
annoy, I think.

> Note that I find the current settings quite usable on my 266Mhz Pentium-2
> so I'm not sure how important it is to change them

All I know is that quite a few people complain.