Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: :match and 'hlsearch'

Expand Messages
  • Halim, Salman
    That s not all! The sign line highlight no longer clobbers search and match, either! Did my piddling request have something to do this with, I wonder? :)
    Message 1 of 21 , Mar 1 7:58 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      That's not all! The sign line highlight no longer clobbers search and
      match, either!

      Did my piddling request have something to do this with, I wonder? :)

      Thanks a bunch,

      Salman.

      > Am I dreaming, or does use of the ":match" command no more
      > inhibit 'hlsearch' highlighting? If I'm right, then line 1195
      > of doc/pattern.txt isn't needed anymore.
      >
      > Test case:
      > :set hlsearch
      > /e
      > :match TODO /i/
      >
      > All occurrences of the letter e are still highlighted in
      > Search highlighting. Toggling 'hlsearch' and using the
      > ":match" command, with or without argument, now act on one
      > kind of highlight without touching the other.

      ...

      > Best regards,
      > Tony.
    • A. J. Mechelynck
      Bram Moolenaar wrote: [...] ... Ah, a misunderstanding on my part then. ... I think that could vary quite a lot from user to user. Personally I almost never
      Message 2 of 21 , Mar 1 8:05 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Bram Moolenaar wrote:
        [...]
        > That has been like this for a long time. The remark that the match
        > highlighting overrules search highlighting is that when you have both at
        > one character then match highlighting is used.

        Ah, a misunderstanding on my part then.

        >
        >> And BTW, IMHO there should be a link to the new |pi_paren.txt| help
        >> file, not only under 'showmatch' and/or 'matchpairs' (where Bram will
        >> soon insert it, probably tonight) but also under :match (since, if the
        >> plugin is active, moving the cursor onto or off from a bracket will now
        >> kill ":match" highlighting).
        >
        > Right, the matchparen plugin uses ":match" and thus clears any previous
        > match pattern.
        >
        > Perhaps we should use a separate match for the matchparen plugin?
        > It's not too difficult, just requires more memory and a bit more time.
        >
        > How often would one use both the matchparen plugin and another kind of
        > ":match" highlighting?

        I think that could vary quite a lot from user to user. Personally I
        almost never use ":match", and at first the plugin seemed mildly
        annoying to me; but I guess I would use it more if my programming
        language of choice was LISP ;-) or even C, rather than HTML. (But if it
        were LISP, wouldn't I be editing in Emacs? ;-) )

        >
        > I was also wondering if anyone has a problem with the matchparen plugin
        > being a standard plugin. Does it interfere with anything? Is the delay
        > noticable?
        >

        The few times that I saw that highlight, I never noticed any delay.
        IIUC, it won't even try to look farther away than the limits of the
        current window, so the size of the editfile oughtn't to matter. And
        after your mail of this morning I made the following mappings:

        :map <F5> :DoMatchParen()<CR>
        :map <C-F5> :NoMatchParen()<CR>
        :imap <F5> <C-O>:DoMatchParen()<CR>
        :imap <C-F5> <C-O>:NoMatchParen()<CR>

        so I have it available at the press of a key if ever I want it.

        BTW, what would you think of an additional command, ":ToggleMatchParen"?
        And/or letting user scripts know whether match-paren highlighting is
        currently on or off? Either replace s:paren_hl_on by b:paren_hl_on or,
        maybe more secure,

        function paren_hl_status()
        return s:paren_hl_on
        endfunction

        affording read-only access to the variable (write access is by means of
        the *MatchParen commands).

        I have given some thought to the implications of making paren_hl_on
        buffer-local; I suppose it would be possible but would require a global
        companion variable so the user could set the default for future buffers.
        I'm not sure it's worth the trouble.


        Best regards,
        Tony.
      • Halim, Salman
        ... I second that, though I would like to add that I would prefer to have the enable/disable be on a per-buffer basis: I would set it in the ftplugin for
        Message 3 of 21 , Mar 1 8:14 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          > I was also wondering if anyone has a problem with the matchparen
          > plugin being a standard plugin. Does it interfere with
          > anything? Is the delay noticable?

          I second that, though I would like to add that I would prefer to have
          the enable/disable be on a per-buffer basis: I would set it in the
          ftplugin for java, HTML/XML and Vim, for example, but leave it disabled
          for when I'm typing up an email message or something like that.

          I do occasionally use :match to highlight lines that are too long
          (beyond my current &tw) and this would clobber that, but I could choose
          to disable it if I really wanted.

          If it is extended to also highlight surrounding brackets (please!) or
          the area within with a special background (as was suggested in the
          todo), then speed might become an issue. I get around that by faking
          things like this:

          autocmd! CursorMoved,CursorMovedI <buffer> if LongEnough(
          "b:matchparen_timer", 2, 5 ) | call s:Highlight_Matching_Pair() | endif
          autocmd! CursorHold,CursorHoldI <buffer> call
          s:Highlight_Matching_Pair()

          (Of course, in the global version, you'd replace the <buffer> with * and
          b:matchparen_timer with g:...)

          LongEnough is a function I wrote specifically for CursorMoved-related
          autocommands to ameliorate the slow-down effect (based on a discussion
          with Tony two weeks or so ago) -- calling it with the name of a variable
          in which to store the time of the last access (it will create a variable
          called b:matchparen_timer_callCount also) and "2, 5" means to return 1
          (true) no more than once every 2 seconds OR every 5 calls. In other
          words, it would match the surrounding parentheses if either 2 seconds
          have elapsed since it last returned true or the cursor has moved 5 times
          (the motion key was held down) -- it's not the immediate response one
          would like, but it's a tradeoff between immediate response and things
          sloing down too much. The CursorHold version further helps if I just
          sit still for a while without moving anything:

          " Returns true if at least delay seconds have elapsed since the last
          time this function was called, based on the time
          " contained in the variable "timer". The first time it is called, the
          variable is defined and the function returns
          " true.
          "
          " True means not zero.
          "
          " For example, to execute something no more than once every two seconds
          using a variable named "b:myTimer", do this:
          "
          " if LongEnough( "b:myTimer", 2 )
          " <do the thing>
          " endif
          "
          " The optional 3rd parameter is the number of times to suppress the
          operation within the specified time and then let it
          " happen even though the required delay hasn't happened. For example:
          "
          " if LongEnough( "b:myTimer", 2, 5 )
          " <do the thing>
          " endif
          "
          " Means to execute either every 2 seconds or every 5 calls, whichever
          happens first.
          function! LongEnough( timer, delay, ... )
          let result = 0

          let suppressionCount = 0
          if ( exists( 'a:1' ) )
          let suppressionCount = a:1
          endif

          " This is the first time we're being called.
          if ( !exists( a:timer ) )
          let result = 1
          else
          let timeElapsed = localtime() - {a:timer}

          " If it's been a while...
          if ( timeElapsed >= a:delay )
          let result = 1
          elseif ( suppressionCount > 0 )
          let {a:timer}_callCount += 1

          " It hasn't been a while, but the number of times we have been
          called has hit the suppression limit, so we activate
          " anyway.
          if ( {a:timer}_callCount >= suppressionCount )
          let result = 1
          endif
          endif
          endif

          " Reset both the timer and the number of times we've been called since
          the last update.
          if ( result )
          let {a:timer} = localtime()
          let {a:timer}_callCount = 0
          endif

          return result
          endfunction
        • Bram Moolenaar
          ... No, no, I completely ignore user requests! :-) Watch out for problems with highlighting though, the priority stuff is tricky. -- Making it up? Why
          Message 4 of 21 , Mar 1 8:33 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Halim Salman wrote:

            > That's not all! The sign line highlight no longer clobbers search and
            > match, either!
            >
            > Did my piddling request have something to do this with, I wonder? :)

            No, no, I completely ignore user requests! :-)


            Watch out for problems with highlighting though, the priority stuff is
            tricky.

            --
            "Making it up? Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough
            as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
            -- Marvin, the Paranoid Android in Douglas Adams'
            "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

            /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
            /// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
            \\\ download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org ///
            \\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://www.ICCF.nl ///
          • Yakov Lerner
            ... Why not allow N separate match es, identified by user-supplied name ? For example, then match Column80 Error / %80c.*/ would peacefully coexist with
            Message 5 of 21 , Mar 1 8:46 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              "Bram Moolenaar" <Bram@...> wrote:
              > Right, the matchparen plugin uses ":match" and thus clears any previous
              > match pattern.
              >
              > Perhaps we should use a separate match for the matchparen plugin?

              Why not allow N separate match'es, identified by user-supplied name ?

              For example, then 'match Column80 Error /\%80c.*/' would peacefully
              coexist with paren-match and with 'unnamed' match set manually by the
              user.

              I use match sometimes. I think there might be uses for named matches.

              Yakov
              --

              iler_ml@...

              --
              http://www.fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin
            • Bram Moolenaar
              ... That s getting very complicated. It would require additional commands to list the matches defined, clear matches by name or all of them, etc.
              Message 6 of 21 , Mar 1 10:03 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Yakov Lerner wrote:

                > "Bram Moolenaar" <Bram@...> wrote:
                > > Right, the matchparen plugin uses ":match" and thus clears any previous
                > > match pattern.
                > >
                > > Perhaps we should use a separate match for the matchparen plugin?
                >
                > Why not allow N separate match'es, identified by user-supplied name ?
                >
                > For example, then 'match Column80 Error /\%80c.*/' would peacefully
                > coexist with paren-match and with 'unnamed' match set manually by the
                > user.
                >
                > I use match sometimes. I think there might be uses for named matches.

                That's getting very complicated. It would require additional commands
                to list the matches defined, clear matches by name or all of them, etc.
                Implementation isn't simple either.

                I tend to think that two or three matches will be sufficient. One for
                the matchparen plugin, one for manual matching and one for another
                plugin.

                --
                How To Keep A Healthy Level Of Insanity:
                1. At lunch time, sit in your parked car with sunglasses on and point
                a hair dryer at passing cars. See if they slow down.

                /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
                /// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
                \\\ download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org ///
                \\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://www.ICCF.nl ///
              • Halim, Salman
                This gets my vote. Salman.
                Message 7 of 21 , Mar 1 10:58 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  This gets my vote.

                  Salman.

                  > Why not allow N separate match'es, identified by user-supplied name ?
                  >
                  > For example, then 'match Column80 Error /\%80c.*/' would
                  > peacefully coexist with paren-match and with 'unnamed' match
                  > set manually by the user.
                  >
                  > I use match sometimes. I think there might be uses for named matches.
                  >
                  > Yakov
                  > --
                • Nikolai Weibull
                  ... I realize that it would be additional work, but I think it would be worth it. There are quite a few things the :match command could be used for that can t
                  Message 8 of 21 , Mar 1 11:50 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 3/1/06, Bram Moolenaar <Bram@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Yakov Lerner wrote:
                    > > Why not allow N separate match'es, identified by user-supplied name ?
                    > >
                    > > For example, then 'match Column80 Error /\%80c.*/' would peacefully
                    > > coexist with paren-match and with 'unnamed' match set manually by the
                    > > user.
                    > >
                    > > I use match sometimes. I think there might be uses for named matches.
                    >
                    > That's getting very complicated. It would require additional commands
                    > to list the matches defined, clear matches by name or all of them, etc.
                    > Implementation isn't simple either.
                    >
                    > I tend to think that two or three matches will be sufficient. One for
                    > the matchparen plugin, one for manual matching and one for another
                    > plugin.

                    I realize that it would be additional work, but I think it would be
                    worth it. There are quite a few things the :match command could be
                    used for that can't be done with syntax highlighting. I suppose
                    Tony's database-record lister is one plugin that could use it. Then
                    there's the column-X-type plugin that highlights too-long lines. I
                    was considering it for doing interactive-applications in Vim, but then
                    saw that it only supported one match at a time and forgot about it.

                    If we're going to go for two or three, then N is probably just as easy
                    to implement anyway, as a more general solution is generally (see)
                    easier to do.

                    nikolai

                    P.S.
                    Even further: it would be quite cool to be able to modify the
                    syntax-tree, i.e., being able to do something like

                    :call highlightline(5, Comment)

                    and even more fine-grained control, i.e., per-character highlighting.
                    But I guess that might be getting a bit too close to an operating
                    system.
                    D.S.
                  • mzyzik@gmail.com
                    wow this gets my vote also I always just thought I was misusing :match somehow when I tried to match several things --Matt
                    Message 9 of 21 , Mar 1 12:29 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      wow this gets my vote also

                      I always just thought I was misusing :match somehow when I tried to
                      match several things

                      --Matt

                      On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 01:58:23PM -0500, Halim, Salman wrote:
                      > This gets my vote.
                      >
                      > Salman.
                      >
                      > > Why not allow N separate match'es, identified by user-supplied name ?
                      > >
                      > > For example, then 'match Column80 Error /\%80c.*/' would
                      > > peacefully coexist with paren-match and with 'unnamed' match
                      > > set manually by the user.
                      > >
                      > > I use match sometimes. I think there might be uses for named matches.
                      > >
                      > > Yakov
                      > > --
                    • mzyzik@gmail.com
                      ... Ok I m confused. What can :match do that :syn match cannot? And for reference, I always use this in all my buffers: highlight WhiteSpaceEOL
                      Message 10 of 21 , Mar 1 1:12 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > I realize that it would be additional work, but I think it would be
                        > worth it. There are quite a few things the :match command could be
                        > used for that can't be done with syntax highlighting.

                        Ok I'm confused. What can ":match" do that ":syn match" cannot?

                        And for reference, I always use this in all my buffers:
                        highlight WhiteSpaceEOL ctermbg=darkgreen guibg=lightgreen
                        match WhiteSpaceEOL /\(^\s*\)\@<=\ \|\s\+$/
                        It matches all trailing whitespace and also any spaces in leading
                        whitespace.

                        If I do another match it clears the first. I noticed that I can do
                        multiple ":syn match" though. Can someone explain the difference.

                        --Matt
                      • Charles E. Campbell, Jr.
                        ... Priority. Example: assume one has a syn match for strings: this is a string that stretches out past 40 characters Assume one has a match: match Error
                        Message 11 of 21 , Mar 1 1:38 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          mzyzik@... wrote:

                          >Ok I'm confused. What can ":match" do that ":syn match" cannot?
                          >
                          >

                          Priority.

                          Example: assume one has a syn match for strings:

                          "this is a string that stretches out past 40 characters"

                          Assume one has a match:

                          match Error "/\%>40c"

                          With this setup, anything past column 40 will be Error highlighted.
                          However, changing that match to a syn match:

                          syn match Error '/\%>40c'

                          and you won't see any Error highlighting. Why? Because the string
                          highlighting began in column 2 *and continues*
                          until its match is over. Note that the string highlighting does not
                          contain the syn-match-Error. This problem is typical
                          of trying to shove a syn-match-Error of the sort shown into the
                          highlighting mix -- it doesn't have priority, isn't contained,
                          etc.

                          Furthermore, assume that you modify the string handling to contain your
                          new syn-match-error, but note that the string's
                          ending is inside the syn-match-Error, *not* inside the string match.
                          Now your strings won't terminate correctly.

                          Regards,
                          Chip Campbell
                        • A. J. Mechelynck
                          ... Possibility 1: We already have named autocommand groups. Couldn t we have similar (and similarly optional) match groups, thus allowing an unlimited number
                          Message 12 of 21 , Mar 1 3:24 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Bram Moolenaar wrote:
                            > Yakov Lerner wrote:
                            >
                            >> "Bram Moolenaar" <Bram@...> wrote:
                            >>> Right, the matchparen plugin uses ":match" and thus clears any previous
                            >>> match pattern.
                            >>>
                            >>> Perhaps we should use a separate match for the matchparen plugin?
                            >> Why not allow N separate match'es, identified by user-supplied name ?
                            >>
                            >> For example, then 'match Column80 Error /\%80c.*/' would peacefully
                            >> coexist with paren-match and with 'unnamed' match set manually by the
                            >> user.
                            >>
                            >> I use match sometimes. I think there might be uses for named matches.
                            >
                            > That's getting very complicated. It would require additional commands
                            > to list the matches defined, clear matches by name or all of them, etc.
                            > Implementation isn't simple either.
                            >
                            > I tend to think that two or three matches will be sufficient. One for
                            > the matchparen plugin, one for manual matching and one for another
                            > plugin.
                            >

                            Possibility 1: We already have named autocommand groups. Couldn't we
                            have similar (and similarly optional) match groups, thus allowing an
                            unlimited number of parallel (named) matches but keeping the present
                            behaviour by default (if no matchgroups are used)?

                            Possibility 2: Alternately, why stay at a meagre two or three? Let's
                            foresee ten of them (:match or :0match, :1match, .. :9match). As my old
                            chemistry teacher used to say: "If you want to have enough, make sure
                            you have too much."


                            Best regards,
                            Tony.
                          • Benji Fisher
                            ... I like the first suggestion. Perhaps search highlighting could be made part of the :match hierarchy (matchgroup Search). One issue to consider is
                            Message 13 of 21 , Mar 1 8:53 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 12:24:17AM +0100, A. J. Mechelynck wrote:
                              >
                              > Possibility 1: We already have named autocommand groups. Couldn't we
                              > have similar (and similarly optional) match groups, thus allowing an
                              > unlimited number of parallel (named) matches but keeping the present
                              > behaviour by default (if no matchgroups are used)?
                              >
                              > Possibility 2: Alternately, why stay at a meagre two or three? Let's
                              > foresee ten of them (:match or :0match, :1match, .. :9match). As my old
                              > chemistry teacher used to say: "If you want to have enough, make sure
                              > you have too much."

                              I like the first suggestion. Perhaps search highlighting could be
                              made part of the :match hierarchy (matchgroup Search). One issue to
                              consider is priority. If I have

                              matchgroup Foo
                              match Search /[aeiou]/

                              matchgroup Bar
                              match WarningMsg /[abcde]/

                              matchgroup END

                              then how does "a" get highlighted? I suggest letting the last-defined
                              match win. I suspect it is easy to implement; it means that whatever
                              match I define right now shows its effect immediately; and if
                              "matchgroup Search" is defined internally, then :match has priority over
                              hlsearch, so it is backwards compatible.

                              Bram, once again you have proven that the problem with adding new
                              features is that we users just ask for more. It is like juggling:
                              "Wow, you can juggle four! Can you do five?"

                              HTH --Benji Fisher
                            • A. J. Mechelynck
                              ... To which group (if any) does the baz match belong? Hypothesis 1: stack : matchgroup END closes group bar and group foo reverts. Hypothesis 2:
                              Message 14 of 21 , Mar 1 9:34 PM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Benji Fisher wrote:
                                > On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 12:24:17AM +0100, A. J. Mechelynck wrote:
                                >> Possibility 1: We already have named autocommand groups. Couldn't we
                                >> have similar (and similarly optional) match groups, thus allowing an
                                >> unlimited number of parallel (named) matches but keeping the present
                                >> behaviour by default (if no matchgroups are used)?
                                >>
                                >> Possibility 2: Alternately, why stay at a meagre two or three? Let's
                                >> foresee ten of them (:match or :0match, :1match, .. :9match). As my old
                                >> chemistry teacher used to say: "If you want to have enough, make sure
                                >> you have too much."
                                >
                                > I like the first suggestion. Perhaps search highlighting could be
                                > made part of the :match hierarchy (matchgroup Search). One issue to
                                > consider is priority. If I have
                                >
                                > matchgroup Foo
                                > match Search /[aeiou]/
                                >
                                > matchgroup Bar
                                > match WarningMsg /[abcde]/
                                >
                                > matchgroup END
                                >
                                > then how does "a" get highlighted? I suggest letting the last-defined
                                > match win. I suspect it is easy to implement; it means that whatever
                                > match I define right now shows its effect immediately; and if
                                > "matchgroup Search" is defined internally, then :match has priority over
                                > hlsearch, so it is backwards compatible.
                                >
                                > Bram, once again you have proven that the problem with adding new
                                > features is that we users just ask for more. It is like juggling:
                                > "Wow, you can juggle four! Can you do five?"
                                >
                                > HTH --Benji Fisher
                                >
                                >
                                >

                                :matchgroup foo
                                :match User1 /foo/
                                :matchgroup bar
                                :match User2 /bar/
                                :matchgroup END
                                :match Todo /baz/

                                To which group (if any) does the "baz" match belong?

                                Hypothesis 1: "stack": "matchgroup END" closes group "bar" and group
                                "foo" reverts.

                                Hypothesis 2: "one-at-a-time": "matchgroup bar" closes group foo,
                                "matchgroup END" closes group bar, "match /baz/" is in the default
                                (unnamed) group.

                                Hypothesis 2 seems more consistent with ":redir END" and ":augroup END".

                                -----

                                matchgroup foo
                                match Title /[abcde]/
                                matchgroup bar
                                match Todo /[aeiou]/
                                " the letter a is highlighted as Todo
                                matchgroup foo
                                match Title /[aáàâäå]/
                                " I suppose the latter brings group foo "to the front" and
                                " highlights a in Title?
                                match
                                " I suppose this undefines the "foo" match, so group "bar"
                                " reverts and a is again in Todo?


                                Best regards,
                                Tony.
                              • Bram Moolenaar
                                ... Right. That s why I think three matches are enough. If you try to juggle four you ll get confused and drop one. You appear to underestimate the impact
                                Message 15 of 21 , Mar 2 1:58 AM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Benji Fisher wrote:

                                  > On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 12:24:17AM +0100, A. J. Mechelynck wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > Possibility 1: We already have named autocommand groups. Couldn't we
                                  > > have similar (and similarly optional) match groups, thus allowing an
                                  > > unlimited number of parallel (named) matches but keeping the present
                                  > > behaviour by default (if no matchgroups are used)?
                                  > >
                                  > > Possibility 2: Alternately, why stay at a meagre two or three? Let's
                                  > > foresee ten of them (:match or :0match, :1match, .. :9match). As my old
                                  > > chemistry teacher used to say: "If you want to have enough, make sure
                                  > > you have too much."
                                  >
                                  > I like the first suggestion. Perhaps search highlighting could be
                                  > made part of the :match hierarchy (matchgroup Search). One issue to
                                  > consider is priority. If I have
                                  >
                                  > matchgroup Foo
                                  > match Search /[aeiou]/
                                  >
                                  > matchgroup Bar
                                  > match WarningMsg /[abcde]/
                                  >
                                  > matchgroup END
                                  >
                                  > then how does "a" get highlighted? I suggest letting the last-defined
                                  > match win. I suspect it is easy to implement; it means that whatever
                                  > match I define right now shows its effect immediately; and if
                                  > "matchgroup Search" is defined internally, then :match has priority over
                                  > hlsearch, so it is backwards compatible.
                                  >
                                  > Bram, once again you have proven that the problem with adding new
                                  > features is that we users just ask for more. It is like juggling:
                                  > "Wow, you can juggle four! Can you do five?"

                                  Right. That's why I think three matches are enough. If you try to
                                  juggle four you'll get confused and drop one.

                                  You appear to underestimate the impact matches have on redrawing speed.
                                  There is a penatly for having to redraw more often and a penalty per
                                  character to check for highlighting. I rather have plugin developers
                                  stuggle with the small number of matches available than me having to
                                  struggle to keep redrawing speedy. Sometimes less is better.

                                  --
                                  How To Keep A Healthy Level Of Insanity:
                                  7. Finish all your sentences with "in accordance with the prophecy".

                                  /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
                                  /// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
                                  \\\ download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org ///
                                  \\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://www.ICCF.nl ///
                                • Nikolai Weibull
                                  ... Why not let plugin developers and the people that install them worry about redrawing speeds. If people install too many plugins and thus impair their
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Mar 2 1:20 PM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On 3/2/06, Bram Moolenaar <Bram@...> wrote:
                                    > You appear to underestimate the impact matches have on redrawing speed.
                                    > There is a penatly for having to redraw more often and a penalty per
                                    > character to check for highlighting. I rather have plugin developers
                                    > stuggle with the small number of matches available than me having to
                                    > struggle to keep redrawing speedy. Sometimes less is better.

                                    Why not let plugin developers and the people that install them worry
                                    about redrawing speeds. If people install too many plugins and thus
                                    impair their redrawing speeds then let them fix it by picking and
                                    choosing the set of plugins that they can't live without. Just make
                                    it clear in the documentation the reasons for too many matches being a
                                    performance hog.

                                    It's better to plan something that can grow with more CPU-speed
                                    further on than to be locked into something that worked 2006 on an
                                    MS-DOS system or whatever system we're worrying about today. Let's
                                    not forget the quote that pops up in your signature once every so
                                    often about people never needing more than 640 kilobyte of memory, as
                                    said by a certain rich fellow that has built an operating system that
                                    is basically collapsing over itself due to backwards-compatibility
                                    issues and just a horrendous amount of code that has been
                                    incrementally put together to deal with new word-sizes and new
                                    technologies subsuming old ones. And while that quote is probably not
                                    correctly attributed, see http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Bill_Gates44
                                    and http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates45, I still think it is a
                                    point to consider.

                                    nikolai
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.