Re: address@hidden: Speed of all-completions]

[David Kastrup]

Andreas Schwab <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > Andreas Schwab <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> >> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
> >> 
> >> > To illustrate what I mean, here is a patch against the most recent
> >> > version.  Note that I have to undo the binding before calling a
> >> > user-defined predicate function (which might rely on the original
> >> > binding).  The last of your three changes, not running in a loop, was
> >>                          ^^^^^^^^^^
> >> > not improvable, however.
> >> 
> >> Where do you get this idea?
> >
> > From: Andreas Schwab <address@hidden>
> > Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:22:13 +0200
> > Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > This is due to this change:
> >
> >     (Ftry_completion, Fall_completions, Ftest_completion): Bind
> >     case-fold-search to the value of completion-ignore-case when
> >     checking completion-regexp-list.
> 
> This is not my change.

I did not claim it was.  You conveniently snipped the rest of the
mail where you explain your fix to the above change.

There is an entry in the src/ChangeLog from you:

2004-06-14  Andreas Schwab  <address@hidden>

        * minibuf.c (Ftry_completion, Fall_completions, Ftest_completion):
        Avoid calling specbind when completion-regexp-list is empty.

Can we now stop this silliness?  You had three changes, one in
Ftry_completion, one in Fall_completions, one in Ftest_completion.
You sent mail explaining the changes and you entered them in
src/ChangeLog.  I posted an amendment and explained the reason for it.

If you want to deny that you made those changes, that's fine with me,
but it adds nothing to the discussion about the viability of the
improvement I proposed to the changes somebody happened to make under
your name.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum