Re: Default of jit-lock-stealth-time

[Kim F. Storm]

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> martin rudalics <address@hidden> writes:
>
>>> So it seems plain stupid to release it with a setting that will impact
>>> and annoy users and cause a support burden after the release.
>>
>> While I agree with all of David's arguments (and even add the one
>> that a buffer tail is stealthily refontified after every single
>> buffer change followed by 16 secs idleness) I'm afraid that setting
>> this to nil won't remove any support burden.  Many major modes still
>> work better when they are allowed to fontify a buffer from beginning
>> to end.
>
> But stealth mode does not guarantee that at all.  It is completely
> irreproducible whether or not some buffer has been completely
> stealthified.

Agree!

I actually think Martin's argument speaks _against_ a non-nil default
value of jit-lock-stealth-time -- no major mode should ever rely on
such convoluted behavior.

-- 
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk