Re: Overlay tree. Stuck again

[Joakim Jalap]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

>> From: Joakim Jalap <address@hidden>
>> Cc: address@hidden
>> Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 12:56:15 +0100
>> 
>> > This might be a silly idea, but did you try removing them from the
>> > tree, and then re-adding them?  (I assume that adding a node will
>> > produce an ordered tree.)
>> 
>> Yes, that is the "big hammer" approach :) I hae thought about it, but I
>> think the problem is that it will be too expensive.
>
> I suggest to implement it and time it.  You might be surprised.  Even
> if you are right, and it is indeed too expensive, you will at the very
> least have a base-line performance figure against which you could
> compare the alternative solutions.
>
If the 43rd fails I will try it :)

Actually I'm afraid it will be too slow anyway. It seems a lot of the
use of overlays is not as "static" as one would like. For example magit
deletes and recreates its overlays every time point moves, even if they
stay in the same place. For such uses I guess a linked list will be a
lot faster than a self balancing tree.

But first I will try to make it work at all :)