[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: animate incredibly slow compared to 21.3
From: |
Kim F. Storm |
Subject: |
Re: animate incredibly slow compared to 21.3 |
Date: |
Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:42:33 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Miles Bader <address@hidden> writes:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 02:15:22 +0100, Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> wrote:
>> I still fail to see why sit-for is so bad in line-move -- most of the
>> time it simply means that redisplay happens a little sooner than it
>> would otherwise do.
>
> Because `sit-for' means something completely different -- it means
> "Hey I want the user to see this, please flush any pending redisplay
> so he can see it" [modulo details about about buffer input etc.].
> What you're talking about is "hey, let me calculate some stuff more
> accurately."
I don't disagree with this -- and we should eventually find a better
way to do this.
However, for the release, I think we should accept the current
code, as it works well enough for practical, everyday usage.
> It's quite reasonable to want to do the latter in code that shouldn't
> be displaying anything. Conflating the two notions is ugly and
> pointless. _Even if_ the current most practical workaround for some
> problem is to use `sit-for' when you really want to do the other
> thing, it would make a lot of sense to at least call it something
> else, and have that something else use sit-for.
That is exactly what we were discussing...
> If I do something requiring up-to-date display calculations, and then
> record it in a keyboard macro and execute it with a repeat-count of
> 10,000, I certainly don't want to see it redisplay 10,000 times -- I
> want it to sit there silently until it's done, and then redisplay.
That is a good point.
Actually, I think we should NOT do partial vscrolling when executing a
macro. E.g. if a user creates a macro like
C-a C-t C-n
and repeats it 10000 times, he would expect it to work the same on
FULL and PARTIAL lines. With partial scrolling, the number of C-t's
performed on partial lines would depend on how tall the line is.
Likewise for non-interactive use.
I will install a fix.
--
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk
- Re: animate incredibly slow compared to 21.3, (continued)
- Re: animate incredibly slow compared to 21.3, Stefan Monnier, 2005/03/12
- Re: animate incredibly slow compared to 21.3, Jan D., 2005/03/12
- Re: animate incredibly slow compared to 21.3, Richard Stallman, 2005/03/13
- Re: animate incredibly slow compared to 21.3, Jan D., 2005/03/13
- Re: animate incredibly slow compared to 21.3, Richard Stallman, 2005/03/11
- Re: animate incredibly slow compared to 21.3, Kim F. Storm, 2005/03/12
- Re: animate incredibly slow compared to 21.3, Miles Bader, 2005/03/12
- Re: animate incredibly slow compared to 21.3,
Kim F. Storm <=
- Re: animate incredibly slow compared to 21.3, Richard Stallman, 2005/03/13
- Re: animate incredibly slow compared to 21.3, Richard Stallman, 2005/03/13
- Re: animate incredibly slow compared to 21.3, Richard Stallman, 2005/03/12
Re: animate incredibly slow compared to 21.3, Richard Stallman, 2005/03/10