[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Replacing linum-mode by nlinum-mode
From: |
Juanma Barranquero |
Subject: |
Re: Replacing linum-mode by nlinum-mode |
Date: |
Wed, 14 Aug 2013 18:03:38 +0200 |
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Stefan Monnier
<address@hidden> wrote:
> Well, AFAIK it's faster and more reliable.
I've never had problems with linum's speed. Nor with reliability,
truth be told; though I know there are a few bug reports about it, so
perhaps I've just been lucky.
But, in any case, a functionality-removing change could only be called
at most a "sidegrade". Also, I seem to remember from the last time we
talked about this, that implementing the missing linum features in
nlinum wasn't exactly trivial, if at all possible.
J
- Replacing linum-mode by nlinum-mode, Stefan Monnier, 2013/08/13
- RE: Replacing linum-mode by nlinum-mode, Drew Adams, 2013/08/13
- Re: Replacing linum-mode by nlinum-mode, Stefan Monnier, 2013/08/13
- RE: Replacing linum-mode by nlinum-mode, Drew Adams, 2013/08/13
- Re: Replacing linum-mode by nlinum-mode, Juanma Barranquero, 2013/08/14
- Re: Replacing linum-mode by nlinum-mode, Stefan Monnier, 2013/08/14
- Re: Replacing linum-mode by nlinum-mode, Juanma Barranquero, 2013/08/14
- Re: Replacing linum-mode by nlinum-mode, Stefan Monnier, 2013/08/14
- Re: Replacing linum-mode by nlinum-mode,
Juanma Barranquero <=
- Re: Replacing linum-mode by nlinum-mode, Stefan Monnier, 2013/08/18