[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*
From: |
Stephen J. Turnbull |
Subject: |
Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation* |
Date: |
Fri, 08 Feb 2008 06:13:25 +0900 |
Richard Stallman writes:
> To achieve the former, comint could have a third setting for how it
> moves point, where point movement would be on a timer (by default
> expiring somewhere in the neighborhood of 300ms at a guess). Or if
> you're multitasking and checking progress only in your peripheral
> vision, you could slow it to 1000ms or even more. Probably instead of
> scrolling at the end of the window, which would result in jumps, do a
> recenter after each forward-line.
>
> I can't see concreteley what sort of point movement you have in mind
> to do when the timer goes off. So I don't understand the idea.
> But I think that having point move a few times a second would be
> disastrous for any attempt to do editing.
s/point/window-point/. A disastrous abbreviation, sorry.
Well, you wrote that the screen scrolling was too fast. You specified
a workaround of slowing down the compiler, but that seems silly since
Emacs will buffer as much text as the compiler wants to throw at it.
So I propose slowing down the scrolling to a pace at which you can
keep up with it, which of course will vary depending on how heavily
multitasked you are.
I haven't watched Emacs build in a long time, but on my system which
is reasonably slow, I have no trouble following an XEmacs build in my
peripheral vision. I'd guess typically 1-3 files compile per second
(thus the 300ms pace for scrolling I suggested) and at that pace
warnings stick out like a sore thumb. Ditto for Linux kernel and git
builds (actually, more so since they don't print out command line
options and such, just stuff like "CC kobject.c").
I have no problem editing in one window while window-point is moving
in another. Unless there are so many warnings that I stop thinking
about what I'm doing in favor of thinking about fixing them. But
that's a feature. ;-)
- Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, (continued)
- Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, Richard Stallman, 2008/02/07
- Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, Stefan Monnier, 2008/02/06
- Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, Juri Linkov, 2008/02/06
- Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, Stefan Monnier, 2008/02/06
- Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, Juri Linkov, 2008/02/07
- RE: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, Marshall, Simon, 2008/02/08
- Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, Stefan Monnier, 2008/02/08
- Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/02/06
- Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, Stefan Monnier, 2008/02/06
- Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, Richard Stallman, 2008/02/07
- Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*,
Stephen J. Turnbull <=
- Re: [21.1.90]: point put at point-min in *compilation*, Richard Stallman, 2008/02/07