Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2023 23:38:29 +0300
Cc: luangruo@yahoo.com, sbaugh@janestreet.com, yantar92@posteo.net,
64735@debbugs.gnu.org
From: Dmitry Gutov <dmitry@gutov.dev>
I think these questions are slightly premature. We should first have
the implementation of that filter, and then look for candidates that
could benefit from it.
The implementation in that patch looks almost complete to me, unless you
have any further comments.
Fine, then please post a complete patch with all the bells and
whistles, and let's have it reviewed more widely. (I suggest a new
bug report, as this one is already prohibitively long to follow,
includes unrelated issues, and I fear some people will ignore patches
posted to it). I think there are a few subtleties we still need to
figure out.
If FILTER is the symbol ‘buffer’, it works like the default filter,
but makes some shortcuts to be faster: it doesn't adjust markers and
the process mark (something else?).
Of course, the real text will depend on what the final patch will look
like: I'm not yet sure I understand which parts of
internal-default-process-filter you want to keep in this alternative
filter. (If you intend to keep all of them, it might be better to
replace internal-default-process-filter completely, perhaps first with
some variable exposed to Lisp which we could use to see if the new one
causes issues.)