[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Default of jit-lock-stealth-time
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: Default of jit-lock-stealth-time |
Date: |
Sat, 03 Mar 2007 21:00:44 -0500 |
I mostly use very fast (3 Ghz) machines nowadays, which are not easily
forced into annoying delays. I could try to find a slower machine,
but I need to know what is the clock speed we consider as
``reference'' for such investigations. That is, with what slow clock
speeds we would still like Emacs to be reasonably responsive?
I don't know. I have not kept track of things like that for 15 years.
But I think that if NONE of the developers now finds this annoying,
that problem will be rare enough that it doesn't count for much.
So we can set jit-lock-stealth-time to nil.
Would someone please do that?
- Re: Default of jit-lock-stealth-time, (continued)
- Re: Default of jit-lock-stealth-time, David Kastrup, 2007/03/04
- Re: Default of jit-lock-stealth-time, David Kastrup, 2007/03/04
- Re: Default of jit-lock-stealth-time, Eli Zaretskii, 2007/03/04
- Re: Default of jit-lock-stealth-time, David Kastrup, 2007/03/04
- Re: Default of jit-lock-stealth-time, Miles Bader, 2007/03/06
- Re: Default of jit-lock-stealth-time, David Kastrup, 2007/03/06
- Re: Default of jit-lock-stealth-time, Miles Bader, 2007/03/07
- Re: Default of jit-lock-stealth-time, David Kastrup, 2007/03/08
- Re: Default of jit-lock-stealth-time, Richard Stallman, 2007/03/04
- Re: Default of jit-lock-stealth-time, David Kastrup, 2007/03/05
- Re: Default of jit-lock-stealth-time,
Richard Stallman <=