Re: font-lock-maximum-decoration should be 2 by default?

[Jason Rumney]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

>> From: "Drew Adams" <address@hidden>
>> Cc: <address@hidden>
>> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:53:44 -0700
>> 
>> > > Interesting. I am curious of reasons for that.
>> > 
>> > Performance.  You don't gain much by omitting some fontifications
>> > nowadays.  The variable was introduced to get snappier redisplay;
>> > since the need for that is no longer valid, the default was set to t.
>> 
>> Do you have any proof of that being _the_ reason it was introduced: just for
>> performance?
>
> No proof, just my faulty memory.

In this case, not faulty:

*** lisp/font-lock.el   1997-02-21 09:36:18 +0000
--- lisp/font-lock.el   1997-03-15 13:19:12 +0000
***************
*** 190,196 ****
  If a number, only buffers greater than this size have fontification 
messages.")
  
  ;;;###autoload
! (defvar font-lock-maximum-decoration nil
    "*Maximum decoration level for fontification.
  If nil, use the default decoration (typically the minimum available).
  If t, use the maximum decoration available.
--- 190,196 ----
  If a number, only buffers greater than this size have fontification 
messages.")
  
  ;;;###autoload
! (defvar font-lock-maximum-decoration t
    "*Maximum decoration level for fontification.
  If nil, use the default decoration (typically the minimum available).
  If t, use the maximum decoration available.
***************

1996-08-11  Richard Stallman  <address@hidden>

        * Version 19.33 released.

1997-09-15  Richard Stallman  <address@hidden>

        * Version 20.1 released.

(I thought there was also a 19.34, but that might be my faulty memory,
or maybe it was on a branch, so doesn't show up in the changelogs).