Re: [PATCH] Remove obsolete fast-lock and lazy-lock libraries

[Stefan Monnier]

> Okay, that's a fair point. But if the user has set it to lazy-lock or
> fast-lock wouldn't the reason most likely be that it's expected to be
> better for normal use? And, if that holds, shouldn't we be a bit
> forthcoming by just using the current best, which is jit-lock?
>
> OTOH, I guess that for any other value it is probably best to signal
> an error rather than silently defaulting to nil.
>
> Still, I don't have any strong feelings either way.

I have no reason to believe that there's a non-negligible number of
users out there in the wild using fast-lock or lazy-lock, so whether we
ignore such settings or signal an error for them probably won't make much
difference either way.  I guess the nicer way is to ignore the setting
but emit a message, if you really care.


        Stefan