Re: Default of jit-lock-stealth-time

[Kim F. Storm]

martin rudalics <address@hidden> writes:

>>>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.
>
> Obviously.  But we should be prepared to get a few more bug reports when we
> set this to nil.

That's ok.  

If those bugs are really there - users will see them even when
jit-lock-stealth-time is non-nil.  

Getting bug reports for repeatable bugs is infinitely better than
reports about bugs that "happens from time to time, but I don't know
how to reproduce it".

It will just be much more difficult to debug them, if the bug is
timing dependent, rather than happening consistently.

Again -- a very good reason for the default being nil.

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