[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#6671: moving point and scroll-conservatively
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#6671: moving point and scroll-conservatively |
Date: |
Thu, 24 Mar 2011 22:25:08 +0200 |
> From: Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com>
> Cc: lekktu@gmail.com, 6671@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:01:46 -0400
>
> Well, "the wrong thing" in the sense of "obviously not what the user
> intended", anyway. I agree that the changes you made cause the
> redisplay engine to literally follow the documented meaning of
> scroll-conservatively.
I didn't mean for the code to do what it does now, and certainly
didn't interpret scroll-conservatively to mean that. It was an
accident: I simply didn't realize that arbitrary movement of point
will invoke try_scrolling. I thought we only get there for scrolling
commands, like next-line and scroll-up/down. I intend to fix this.
> Here's a more concrete proposal. We change scroll-conservatively to
> accept a new value, t, which means "scroll as far as you need". Then
> try_scrolling can use the "try scrolling for 10 lines" heuristic before
> failing. In this specific case, a failure changes centering_position,
> adjusting the window start as though we had really scrolled the full
> amount.
>
> However, it's become idiomatic to set scroll-conservatively to a large
> number. Users of that idiom, who haven't changed scroll-conservatively
> to t, would remain affected by the performance hit. To cope with this,
> let's change the meaning of numeric values of scroll-conservatively: if
> it's larger than (say) 300, that is equivalent to t (infinity).
>
> What do you think?
I would like to try fixing that code along the lines I suggested in a
previous mail. That looks like the best alternative, since it doesn't
have any user-level changes (except for the bug that it should fix).
Maybe after I try that, I will come to a conclusion that what I
suggest is unworkable, but until then, I don't think we should
consider such radical changes.
Please let me work on this for a few days. This bug is present on the
trunk for a very long time, and it was never an issue until now (in
fact, its first report came from me, even though I don't use
scroll-conservatively). Given that, I don't see any urgency today, it
can well wait for a few more days.
- bug#6671: moving point and scroll-conservatively, Chong Yidong, 2011/03/23
- bug#6671: moving point and scroll-conservatively, Juanma Barranquero, 2011/03/23
- bug#6671: moving point and scroll-conservatively, Chong Yidong, 2011/03/24
- bug#6671: moving point and scroll-conservatively, Eli Zaretskii, 2011/03/24
- bug#6671: moving point and scroll-conservatively, Chong Yidong, 2011/03/24
- bug#6671: moving point and scroll-conservatively, Chong Yidong, 2011/03/24
- bug#6671: moving point and scroll-conservatively,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- bug#6671: moving point and scroll-conservatively, Juanma Barranquero, 2011/03/24
- bug#6671: moving point and scroll-conservatively, Chong Yidong, 2011/03/24
- bug#6671: moving point and scroll-conservatively, Eli Zaretskii, 2011/03/25
- bug#6671: moving point and scroll-conservatively, Chong Yidong, 2011/03/25
- bug#6671: moving point and scroll-conservatively, Juanma Barranquero, 2011/03/24
- bug#6671: moving point and scroll-conservatively, Chong Yidong, 2011/03/24
- bug#6671: moving point and scroll-conservatively, Juanma Barranquero, 2011/03/24
- bug#6671: moving point and scroll-conservatively, Chong Yidong, 2011/03/24
- bug#6671: moving point and scroll-conservatively, Eli Zaretskii, 2011/03/25
- bug#6671: moving point and scroll-conservatively, Eli Zaretskii, 2011/03/25