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

Re: Progress indicator for :TOhtml command

Expand Messages
  • Andy Wokula
    ... I d suggest to try one of the existing progress bars (sorry, didn t try them myself yet):
    Message 1 of 28 , Jun 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Am 31.05.2010 22:47, schrieb Benjamin Fritz:
      > I love using the :TOhtml command, and I keep finding more ways to use
      > it. Recently, I had a large-ish log file (several thousand lines), in
      > which I wanted to call attention to a few groups of lines, but I
      > figured people may want the context as well. So, I set up some folds
      > and some quick syntax highlighting, and went to go create an html copy
      > of it using the "dynamic folding" feature of the command.
      >
      > Unfortunately, I discovered that processing such a large file, even
      > with no syntax highlighting, takes a *very* long time. I probably
      > should have selected just a smaller area of interest but...
      >
      > I waited quite a while, and finally hit CTRL-C to stop it. Luckily it
      > hadn't actually gotten that far (probably about 30%), but I was
      > worried that it may have been almost done, and all I needed to do was
      > wait a bit longer.
      >
      > So anyway, for future use, I wanted to be able to see quickly whether
      > the conversion was worth waiting for. Therefore, I have written a
      > patch to add a progress indicator.

      I'd suggest to try one of the existing progress bars (sorry, didn't try
      them myself yet):

      http://github.com/tomtom/vimtlib/blob/master/autoload/tlib/progressbar.vim
      http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=2006

      --
      Andy

      --
      You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
      Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
      For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
    • Ben Fritz
      ... I am fine with tabs or spaces for indentation. I am NOT fine with a mixture of the two. From the previous modeline, I assumed that the intent was a
      Message 2 of 28 , Jun 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        On May 31, 10:50 pm, Yongwei Wu <wuyong...@...> wrote:
        > On 1 June 2010 04:47, Benjamin Fritz <fritzophre...@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > And there was nothing to "fix" about the tabs.  They were perfectly
        > fine.  Tabstop was set to the default (8), and only shiftwidth was set
        > to 2 (along with sts, which does not affect the saved file).  You
        > seemed to have confused them.  The original version is easier to view
        > (using type/cat/more/less or nearly anything).
        >

        I am fine with tabs or spaces for indentation. I am NOT fine with a
        mixture of the two. From the previous modeline, I assumed that the
        intent was a tab-based indent. You are free to change the tabstop to
        view the file, but if you edit the file using a 'shiftwidth' and
        'tabstop' value that differ, the indentation will become a mixture of
        tabs and spaces, so that changing tabstop no longer looks right.

        I did not modify the value of 'sts', that was already there.

        --
        You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
        Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
        For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
      • Ben Fritz
        On May 31, 11:11 pm, Christian J. Robinson ... On May 31, 11:11 pm, Christian J. Robinson ... Hmm, strange. I did
        Message 3 of 28 , Jun 1, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          On May 31, 11:11 pm, "Christian J. Robinson" <hept...@...>
          wrote:
          > On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Yongwei Wu wrote:
          > > I tried it on Windows, and the display was too flashy and intrusive.
          > > I can't say I like it.


          On May 31, 11:11 pm, "Christian J. Robinson" <hept...@...>
          wrote:
          > I would be for having a progress meter, if it could be implemented in
          > a better way without slowing the script down.
          >
          > My best suggestion is just to output one line every 5 to 10 percent
          > through processing with the current progress, e.g.:
          >
          >   0%
          >   5%
          >   10%
          >   15%
          >   [...]
          >   95%
          >   Done
          >

          Hmm, strange. I did not notice a slow-down from the original script,
          but then I also set 'nomore' and fdm=manual as a way to speed things
          up a little in addition to the progress bar changes. On my dinosaur of
          a computer, processing 2html.vim took about 40 seconds LESS with the
          patched version that with the unpatched version, according to the
          before/after times returned by localtime(). What did you do to see the
          slowdown?

          I also dislike the flashiness, but couldn't find a way around it. The
          echo'd text gets cleared every pass through the main processing loop.
          For this reason, a periodic (5, 10, 20%, etc.) message wasn't going to
          work. I would certainly prefer this method...my first attempt used
          echon to display one "tick" every few lines processed (a tick being
          calculated to almost fill the current &columns setting). Does someone
          have an idea of how I might accomplish this?

          --
          You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
          Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
          For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
        • Ben Fritz
          ... Hmm, interesting...and thanks! These two plugins seem to use the statusline for the progress indicator. I thought of that, and abandoned the idea when I
          Message 4 of 28 , Jun 1, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            On Jun 1, 7:21 am, Andy Wokula <anw...@...> wrote:
            >
            > I'd suggest to try one of the existing progress bars (sorry,  didn't try
            > them myself yet):
            >
            > http://github.com/tomtom/vimtlib/blob/master/autoload/tlib/progressba...http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=2006
            >

            Hmm, interesting...and thanks! These two plugins seem to use the
            statusline for the progress indicator. I thought of that, and
            abandoned the idea when I noticed that the status lines weren't being
            populated all the way during processing...but later investigation
            showed me that's because 'ruler' gets reset from one of the speed-up
            options set by the plugin (I don't remember which). At the time, I was
            still hoping to use :echon to output the progress indicator, which I
            also had to abandon. My eventual goal is to use the full screen width
            (or pretty close to it) for the progress bar. Is there a good way to
            get this for an individual status line? I didn't think so, whereas
            using an ":echo" type command, &columns basically does the trick.

            I'll give it a shot using the status line (maybe making use of a
            plugin, but I'm hoping for eventual inclusion into the upstream, so
            maybe just pulling code from them). Hopefully it will be more usable.
            For me, the screen flashes quite a bit *without* the progress
            indicator, so I'm not certain it will be, but perhaps the somewhat
            static status line will be more readable than a quickly flashing
            message at the bottom of the window.

            --
            You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
            Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
            For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
          • Ingo Karkat
            ... Personal preferences aside, the syntax/2html.vim looks like a correct softtabstop=2 to me; I use this setting all the time, and Vim supports it well. (Cp.
            Message 5 of 28 , Jun 1, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              On 01-Jun-2010 16:43, Ben Fritz wrote:
              > I am fine with tabs or spaces for indentation. I am NOT fine with a
              > mixture of the two. From the previous modeline, I assumed that the
              > intent was a tab-based indent. You are free to change the tabstop to
              > view the file, but if you edit the file using a 'shiftwidth' and
              > 'tabstop' value that differ, the indentation will become a mixture of
              > tabs and spaces, so that changing tabstop no longer looks right.

              Personal preferences aside, the syntax/2html.vim looks like a correct
              softtabstop=2 to me; I use this setting all the time, and Vim supports it well.
              (Cp. :help 'softtabstop'). The only downside is that you should keep ts=8, and
              not mess with 'shiftwidth' and related settings while editing. In that regard,
              it's less flexible than a pure tab or space-indented format, you're right.

              -- regards, ingo

              --
              You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
              Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
              For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
            • Christian J. Robinson
              ... Time elapsed about 39 seconds. ... Time elapsed about 31 seconds. So the first is over 20% slower. This morning I tried it under a vim -u NONE --noplugin
              Message 6 of 28 , Jun 1, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Ben Fritz wrote:

                > What did you do to see the slowdown?

                In two separate Vim instances ("vim 2html.vim"--not at the same time):

                :let timestart=join(reltime(), ' ') | exe 'so ' . expand('%') | let timefinish=join(reltime(), ' ')
                :echo timestart | echo timefinish

                Time elapsed about 39 seconds.

                :let timestart=join(reltime(), ' ') | exe 'TOhtml' | let timefinish=join(reltime(), ' ')
                :echo timestart | echo timefinish

                Time elapsed about 31 seconds.

                So the first is over 20% slower.

                This morning I tried it under a "vim -u NONE --noplugin 2html.vim"
                instance and your version was actually four seconds faster than the
                original. Odd.

                I do have a fairly complex vimrc, as well as a number of plugins
                installed.

                - Christian

                --
                Christian J. Robinson <heptite@...>

                --
                You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
                Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
                For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
              • Christian Brabandt
                ... Here is an experimental version, in which I included the essential part from the mentioned vim.org/script into the script from Ben. Bugs: - currently only
                Message 7 of 28 , Jun 1, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Tue, June 1, 2010 2:21 pm, Andy Wokula wrote:
                  > I'd suggest to try one of the existing progress bars (sorry, didn't try
                  > them myself yet):
                  >
                  > http://github.com/tomtom/vimtlib/blob/master/autoload/tlib/progressbar.vim
                  > http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=2006

                  Here is an experimental version, in which I included the essential part
                  from the mentioned vim.org/script into the script from Ben.

                  Bugs: - currently only works well with a big enough window.
                  - progressbar requires redrawing the window, while processing
                  the 2html.vim script. This means, it slows it down.
                  - requires a +float (no check yet)

                  regards,
                  Christian

                  --
                  You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
                  Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
                  For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
                • Ben Fritz
                  I ve done some updates...more to follow. I forgot to hit the email updates to me button on the google groups interface so that I can upload attachments on a
                  Message 8 of 28 , Jun 1, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I've done some updates...more to follow. I forgot to hit the "email
                    updates to me" button on the google groups interface so that I can
                    upload attachments on a reply.

                    --
                    You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
                    Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
                    For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
                  • Benjamin Fritz
                    ... I like this look a lot better! I made a few improvements: - Change the color of StatusLineNC to match StatusLine (and restore it at the end) to reduce
                    Message 9 of 28 , Jun 1, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      >
                      > Here is an experimental version, in which I included the essential part
                      > from the mentioned vim.org/script into the script from Ben.
                      >
                      > Bugs: - currently only works well with a big enough window.
                      > - progressbar requires redrawing the window, while processing
                      > the 2html.vim script. This means, it slows it down.
                      > - requires a +float (no check yet)
                      >

                      I like this look a lot better! I made a few improvements:

                      - Change the color of StatusLineNC to match StatusLine (and restore it at the
                      end) to reduce flashing of the statusline.
                      - Draw the progress bar in the new window instead of the original window, to
                      reduce the amout of time from the screen clear to the redraw when redrawing
                      the windows, reducing the flashing effect.
                      - Set the size of the new window to only 2 lines, so that only 1 line of the
                      buffer actually appears. The intent of this was to further reduce the flashing
                      effect, but it also has the nice side affect of making the conversion MUCH
                      faster, since less of the expensive html syntax highlighting needs to be
                      completed every redraw.
                      - Added a second progress bar for the attributes processing (previously I was
                      doing this with a %d/%d printf).
                      - Fixed bug in progress bar incr function that prevented incrementing by large
                      amounts, that are still less than the maximum value.
                      - Fixed bug where progress bar would not fill all the way when doing non-dynamic
                      folds.
                      - Fixed off-by-one error in progress bar initialization.

                      I also removed the "redrawstatus" commands. They did not seem to be necessary,
                      and only served to increase the processing time. Did you have a particular
                      reason to include them?

                      --
                      You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
                      Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
                      For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
                    • Benjamin Fritz
                      ... And one more bugfix, to prevent throwing errors in the cleanup commands at the end. With the attached script on fairly recent hardware, I get the following
                      Message 10 of 28 , Jun 1, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Benjamin Fritz <fritzophrenic@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > I like this look a lot better! I made a few improvements:
                        >

                        And one more bugfix, to prevent throwing errors in the cleanup
                        commands at the end.

                        With the attached script on fairly recent hardware, I get the
                        following timings (in seconds) when converting the 2html.vim script to
                        html, several times and discarding the first few trials (these were
                        outliers...around 100 seconds, probably while getting the cache all
                        ironed out or something):

                        with progress bar:
                        34
                        34
                        35
                        32
                        32
                        without progress bar (using let html_no_progress=1):
                        33
                        33
                        33
                        33
                        32
                        32
                        33
                        30
                        unmodified "official" script (with autocmds to set winsize and
                        foldmethod to prevent syntax highlighting to screw with the results):
                        31
                        32
                        31
                        31

                        For me anyway, the difference made by the progress bar, with the
                        optimizations in the attached version of 2html.vim, is negligible.

                        So...is the screen flashing still too distracting? I think the version
                        attached handles it well enough, at least for my purposes.

                        Any additional comments or fixes?

                        --
                        You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
                        Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
                        For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
                      • Ben Fritz
                        ... Interesting. Is this true, even with the progress bar on the top window as in the latest version? If it is on the bottom, the screen clears again for a
                        Message 11 of 28 , Jun 2, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Jun 2, 3:13 am, "Christian Brabandt" <cbli...@...> wrote:
                          > On Wed, June 2, 2010 1:04 am, Benjamin Fritz wrote:
                          > > - Added a second progress bar for the attributes processing (previously I
                          > > was
                          > >   doing this with a %d/%d printf).
                          > > I also removed the "redrawstatus" commands. They did not seem to be
                          > > necessary,
                          > > and only served to increase the processing time. Did you have a particular
                          > > reason to include them?
                          >
                          > Yes. I can't see the progressbar otherwise. It is not updating for me. So
                          > I suggest, enabling it again.
                          >

                          Interesting. Is this true, even with the progress bar on the top
                          window as in the latest version? If it is on the bottom, the screen
                          clears again for a redraw immediately after the bottom status line is
                          drawn, making it very hard to see the progress bar...which is why I
                          put it on the top.

                          I see from :help :redrawstatus,

                          Useful to update the status line(s) when 'statusline'
                          includes an item that doesn't cause automatic
                          updating.

                          But we're setting the statusline to a new (static) value...surely the
                          statusline is redrawn when 'statusline' is set to something new?

                          If we leave the progress bar on the top window (which I like...any
                          disagreements?) we need to find the appropriate place to put
                          the :redrawstatus command, so that we redraw the correct window's
                          status line. I don't think it's a great idea to use redrawstatus!,
                          although a "normal" use case is probably just the two windows, so
                          maybe it's not that much more expensive?

                          I toyed with the idea of only updating the 'statusline' option and
                          calling :redrawstatus if the progress bar has changed position in a
                          visible way, but on my system (Windows XP, gvim 7.2.437) this wasn't
                          needed.

                          On an unrelated note...should we continue this on vim_use, vim_dev, or
                          both? I original posted to both groups so that I could potentially get
                          more comments, but now it seems we're deep in developer mode.

                          --
                          You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
                          Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
                          For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
                        • Ben Fritz
                          ... This got me thinking...so tried the following: gvim -N -u NONE -i NONE filetype indent plugin on syntax on ... I do not see the progress bars! The status
                          Message 12 of 28 , Jun 2, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Jun 2, 8:43 am, Ben Fritz <fritzophre...@...> wrote:
                            > On Jun 2, 3:13 am, "Christian Brabandt" <cbli...@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > > On Wed, June 2, 2010 1:04 am, Benjamin Fritz wrote:
                            > > > - Added a second progress bar for the attributes processing (previously I
                            > > > was
                            > > >   doing this with a %d/%d printf).
                            > > > I also removed the "redrawstatus" commands. They did not seem to be
                            > > > necessary,
                            > > > and only served to increase the processing time. Did you have a particular
                            > > > reason to include them?
                            >
                            > > Yes. I can't see the progressbar otherwise. It is not updating for me. So
                            > > I suggest, enabling it again.
                            >
                            > Interesting. Is this true, even with the progress bar on the top
                            > window as in the latest version? If it is on the bottom, the screen
                            > clears again for a redraw immediately after the bottom status line is
                            > drawn, making it very hard to see the progress bar...which is why I
                            > put it on the top.
                            >

                            This got me thinking...so tried the following:

                            gvim -N -u NONE -i NONE
                            filetype indent plugin on
                            syntax on
                            :help intro
                            :source $HOME/vimfiles/syntax/2html.vim

                            I do not see the progress bars! The status lines never get drawn at
                            all (and the conversion is lightning fast). It appears I have
                            something in my Vim setup that slows things down enough, or redraws
                            the window, or something, that causes the status lines to appear when
                            normally they would not.

                            Any ideas? I don't see anything suspicious in my usual Buf/Win Enter/
                            Leave autocmds:


                            --- Auto-Commands ---
                            style_highlight WinEnter
                            * if !exists('w:created') | call
                            matchadd('WhitespaceError','\S\@<=\s\+\%#\@<!$') | endif
                            if &filetype=~'\v<%(c|vim|dosbatch)>' && !
                            exists('w:tabs_are_bad') | let w:tabs_are_bad =
                            matchadd('WhitespaceError',"\t") | endif
                            misc WinEnter
                            * if !exists('w:created') && &ft!='qf' | setlocal nowrap
                            | endif
                            matchparen WinEnter
                            * call s:Highlight_Matching_Pair()
                            misc WinEnter
                            * let w:created=1

                            --- Auto-Commands ---
                            insertmode WinLeave
                            * if exists('w:last_fdm') | let &l:foldmethod=w:last_fdm |
                            unlet w:last_fdm | endif

                            --- Auto-Commands ---
                            filetypedetect BufEnter
                            *.xpm if getline(1) =~ "XPM2" | setf xpm2 | else | setf
                            xpm | endif
                            *.xpm2 setf xpm2
                            misc BufEnter
                            * if (&ft=='qf' || &previewwindow || bufname('%') ==#
                            "__Tag_List__") && !exists('s:scrolloff_sav') | let
                            s:scrolloff_sav=&scrolloff | set scrolloff=0 | endif
                            repeatPlugin BufEnter
                            * if g:repeat_tick == 0|let g:repeat_tick = b:changedtick|
                            endif
                            FileExplorer BufEnter
                            * silent! call s:LocalBrowse(expand("<amatch>"))
                            .* silent! call s:LocalBrowse(expand("<amatch>"))
                            BufEnter
                            *.vba setlocal bt=nofile fmr=[[[,]]] fdm=marker|if &ff !=
                            'unix'| setlocal ma ff=unix noma |endif|call
                            vimball#ShowMesg(0,"Source this file to extract it! (:so %)")
                            *.vba.gz setlocal bt=nofile fmr=[[[,]]] fdm=marker|if &ff !=
                            'unix'| setlocal ma ff=unix noma |endif|call
                            vimball#ShowMesg(0,"Source this file to extract it! (:so %)")
                            *.vba.bz2 setlocal bt=nofile fmr=[[[,]]] fdm=marker|if &ff !=
                            'unix'| setlocal ma ff=unix noma |endif|call
                            vimball#ShowMesg(0,"Source this file to extract it! (:so %)")
                            *.vba.zip setlocal bt=nofile fmr=[[[,]]] fdm=marker|if &ff !=
                            'unix'| setlocal ma ff=unix noma |endif|call
                            vimball#ShowMesg(0,"Source this file to extract it! (:so %)")

                            --- Auto-Commands ---
                            misc BufLeave
                            * if (&ft=='qf' || &previewwindow || bufname('%') ==#
                            "__Tag_List__") && exists('s:scrolloff_sav') | let
                            &scrolloff=s:scrolloff_sav | unlet s:scrolloff_sav | endif
                            repeatPlugin BufLeave
                            * let g:repeat_tick = (g:repeat_tick == b:changedtick ||
                            g:repeat_tick == 0) ? 0 : -1

                            --
                            You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
                            Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
                            For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
                          • Benjamin Fritz
                            ... Found it. I have the following in my .vimrc: Highlight trailing whitespace, unless it is being entered now autocmd WinEnter,VimEnter * if
                            Message 13 of 28 , Jun 2, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Ben Fritz <fritzophrenic@...> wrote:
                              > It appears I have
                              > something in my Vim setup that slows things down enough, or redraws
                              > the window, or something, that causes the status lines to appear when
                              > normally they would not.
                              >
                              > Any ideas? I don't see anything suspicious in my usual Buf/Win Enter/
                              > Leave autocmds:
                              >

                              Found it. I have the following in my .vimrc:

                              " Highlight trailing whitespace, unless it is being entered now
                              autocmd WinEnter,VimEnter *
                              \ if !exists('w:created') |
                              \ call matchadd('WhitespaceError','\S\@<=\s\+\%#\@<!$') |
                              \ endif
                              " necessary to have it highlight a just-entered trailing space
                              autocmd InsertLeave * redraw!

                              The InsertLeave command is triggering because 2html works using
                              normal! a... commands. I have the autocmd because of the following
                              text in :help /\%# :

                              WARNING: When the cursor is moved after the pattern was used, the
                              result becomes invalid. Vim doesn't automatically update the matches.
                              This is especially relevant for syntax highlighting and 'hlsearch'.
                              In other words: When the cursor moves the display isn't updated for
                              this change. An update is done for lines which are changed (the whole
                              line is updated) or when using the |CTRL-L| command (the whole screen
                              is updated).

                              So anyway, it looks like we need to do the redrawstatus. It would be
                              easiest to just use redrawstatus! right after calling the incr
                              function. I wonder how much of a performance impact this has? If it is
                              significant, we should probably call it only sometimes, perhaps after
                              a progress bar position update (which would mean the number of
                              processed lines would not be updated in real-time on large files). Any
                              thoughts/input?

                              It appears we also need to ignore some events; at least BufEnter,
                              WinEnter, InsertEnter, BufLeave, WinLeave, and InsertLeave. Syntax
                              seems like a good idea as well, but then we'd want to do the syntax
                              highlight when done, so perhaps we can leave this one in. Thoughts on
                              this? Is this really needed as part of the same patch or would this be
                              a future, performance-enhancing-only, patch?

                              --
                              You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
                              Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
                              For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
                            • Christian Brabandt
                              ... Try the attached version: - Check for +float - Should work better with smaller window sizes - Make the progressbar for the attribute processing slightly
                              Message 14 of 28 , Jun 3, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Wed, June 2, 2010 4:36 am, Benjamin Fritz wrote:

                                > Any additional comments or fixes?

                                Try the attached version:

                                - Check for +float
                                - Should work better with smaller window sizes
                                - Make the progressbar for the attribute processing slightly slower
                                (it was too fast, to notice it)
                                - small enhancements to how the progressbar works and how it displays.
                                - don't show any content from the html window

                                regards,
                                Christian

                                --
                                You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
                                Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
                                For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
                              • Benjamin Fritz
                                ... More tweaks. This one is about twice as fast as Christian s, which it accomplishes by only redrawing when the progress bar has changed position. Question:
                                Message 15 of 28 , Jun 3, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Christian Brabandt <cblists@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Try the attached version:
                                  >
                                  > - Check for +float
                                  > - Should work better with smaller window sizes
                                  > - Make the progressbar for the attribute processing slightly slower
                                  >  (it was too fast, to notice it)
                                  > - small enhancements to how the progressbar works and how it displays.
                                  > - don't show any content from the html window
                                  >

                                  More tweaks. This one is about twice as fast as Christian's, which it
                                  accomplishes by only redrawing when the progress bar has changed
                                  position.

                                  Question: Christian's version calls :redrawstatus on the original
                                  window, but the new window is updated perfectly fine. :help
                                  :redrawstatus seems to indicate that only the current window will be
                                  redrawn unless the ! is given. What gives?

                                  Regardless, I have fixed the above issue and made a couple more minor
                                  fixes, including getting the entire title to display on my teensy
                                  laptop screen.

                                  This version is still not fast enough though. It is about 30% slower
                                  when the progress bar is enabled than when it is disabled. While I
                                  consider it a good tradeoff in most cases, we could certainly make it
                                  better.

                                  It would probably be faster to pre-calculate the line numbers needed
                                  to advance the progress bar rather than doing a bunch of
                                  floating-point math every cycle.

                                  --
                                  You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
                                  Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
                                  For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
                                • Benjamin Fritz
                                  ... I ve attached a new version which pre-calculates the (integer) line numbers needed to advance the progress bar. Now all the floating point math is done
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Jun 5, 2010
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Benjamin Fritz <fritzophrenic@...> wrote:
                                    > This version is still not fast enough though. It is about 30% slower
                                    > when the progress bar is enabled than when it is disabled. While I
                                    > consider it a good tradeoff in most cases, we could certainly make it
                                    > better.
                                    >
                                    > It would probably be faster to pre-calculate the line numbers needed
                                    > to advance the progress bar rather than doing a bunch of
                                    > floating-point math every cycle.
                                    >

                                    I've attached a new version which pre-calculates the (integer) line
                                    numbers needed to advance the progress bar. Now all the floating point
                                    math is done once, up front.

                                    The difference is not really very perceptible. I timed the execution
                                    on two files. First, I did the 5148-line autoload/phpcomplete.vim
                                    script. Timings were as follows on my laptop:

                                    progress disabled:
                                    average: 46 seconds

                                    floating-point progress:
                                    average: 61 seconds
                                    slowdown: 15 seconds longer than without progress bar
                                    percentage: 33% longer than without progress bar

                                    precalculated progress:
                                    average: 62 seconds
                                    slowdown: 16 seconds longer than without progress bar
                                    percentage: 35% longer than without progress bar

                                    Next I did a 33258-line C code file:

                                    progress disabled:
                                    average: 691 seconds

                                    floating-point progress:
                                    average: 716 seconds
                                    slowdown: 25 seconds longer than without progress bar
                                    percentage: 4% longer than without progress bar

                                    precalculated progress:
                                    average: 711 seconds
                                    slowdown: 20 seconds longer than without progress bar
                                    percentage: 3% longer than without progress bar

                                    I also did a number of very small sections of files (my usual use case
                                    for 2html) and did not notice any significant slowing; it only takes
                                    1-2 seconds longer for a 100 or 200 line selection.

                                    I take a few things from this.

                                    First of all, I don't think we'll get much performance improvement
                                    with this method. I do not know whether it is setting the status line
                                    and redrawing it, or whether it is the use of the object-oriented
                                    style functions, but it would probably require a different approach to
                                    get a significant speedup. I certainly like the look a lot better than
                                    the echo method, even if we could get echon working. Is a 10-20 second
                                    slow-down acceptable on large numbers of lines, if the normal
                                    execution time is measured in minutes anyway? To me, it certainly is.
                                    If something is going to be taking more than a few minutes, I want a
                                    progress bar to tell me whether it's worth letting it continue. Since
                                    the slow-down can be significant for midsize files, we will certainly
                                    need to mention in the :help that disabling the progress bar will make
                                    the conversion faster. Maybe we should only show the progress bar
                                    after some amount of time has elapsed? We could suppress the
                                    redrawstatus until 10 seconds have passed, or something like that. Any
                                    thoughts?

                                    Secondly, the precalculated version is not really any faster than the
                                    full floating-point calculation every cycle. I don't really have an
                                    opinion of which method gives more readable code. Does anyone else
                                    have any opinions on which version to keep? I think it would be
                                    possible to do away with floating point calculations entirely using
                                    the precalculated version; currently floating point is only used in
                                    the calculate_ticks function. This might be desireable so that we can
                                    remove the dependence on the +float feature, which is not marked with
                                    a "smallest version" indicator in :help +feature-list. This apparently
                                    means it is "system dependent". Does this mean float is pretty much
                                    always included, unless it is explicitly removed? How common are Vims
                                    without floating-point support? I already added use of the split()
                                    function, which was added in version 7, so this won't work on really
                                    old Vims...but do we want to support Vim 7.1 and earlier?

                                    --
                                    You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
                                    Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
                                    For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
                                  • ZyX
                                    Ответ на сообщение «Re: Progress indicator for :TOhtml command», присланное в 19:39:15 05 июня 2010, Суббота,
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Jun 5, 2010
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Ответ на сообщение «Re: Progress indicator for :TOhtml command»,
                                      присланное в 19:39:15 05 июня 2010, Суббота,
                                      отправитель Benjamin Fritz:

                                      Why do you need float math for progress bar? Integer division is enough unless
                                      you are going to show progress in %.1f or even more precious format. %3.d format
                                      that you are using is integer and you obviously can't show half of a character.

                                      Текст сообщения:
                                      > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Benjamin Fritz <fritzophrenic@...>
                                      wrote:
                                      > > This version is still not fast enough though. It is about 30% slower
                                      > > when the progress bar is enabled than when it is disabled. While I
                                      > > consider it a good tradeoff in most cases, we could certainly make it
                                      > > better.
                                      > >
                                      > > It would probably be faster to pre-calculate the line numbers needed
                                      > > to advance the progress bar rather than doing a bunch of
                                      > > floating-point math every cycle.
                                      >
                                      > I've attached a new version which pre-calculates the (integer) line
                                      > numbers needed to advance the progress bar. Now all the floating point
                                      > math is done once, up front.
                                      >
                                      > The difference is not really very perceptible. I timed the execution
                                      > on two files. First, I did the 5148-line autoload/phpcomplete.vim
                                      > script. Timings were as follows on my laptop:
                                      >
                                      > progress disabled:
                                      > average: 46 seconds
                                      >
                                      > floating-point progress:
                                      > average: 61 seconds
                                      > slowdown: 15 seconds longer than without progress bar
                                      > percentage: 33% longer than without progress bar
                                      >
                                      > precalculated progress:
                                      > average: 62 seconds
                                      > slowdown: 16 seconds longer than without progress bar
                                      > percentage: 35% longer than without progress bar
                                      >
                                      > Next I did a 33258-line C code file:
                                      >
                                      > progress disabled:
                                      > average: 691 seconds
                                      >
                                      > floating-point progress:
                                      > average: 716 seconds
                                      > slowdown: 25 seconds longer than without progress bar
                                      > percentage: 4% longer than without progress bar
                                      >
                                      > precalculated progress:
                                      > average: 711 seconds
                                      > slowdown: 20 seconds longer than without progress bar
                                      > percentage: 3% longer than without progress bar
                                      >
                                      > I also did a number of very small sections of files (my usual use case
                                      > for 2html) and did not notice any significant slowing; it only takes
                                      > 1-2 seconds longer for a 100 or 200 line selection.
                                      >
                                      > I take a few things from this.
                                      >
                                      > First of all, I don't think we'll get much performance improvement
                                      > with this method. I do not know whether it is setting the status line
                                      > and redrawing it, or whether it is the use of the object-oriented
                                      > style functions, but it would probably require a different approach to
                                      > get a significant speedup. I certainly like the look a lot better than
                                      > the echo method, even if we could get echon working. Is a 10-20 second
                                      > slow-down acceptable on large numbers of lines, if the normal
                                      > execution time is measured in minutes anyway? To me, it certainly is.
                                      > If something is going to be taking more than a few minutes, I want a
                                      > progress bar to tell me whether it's worth letting it continue. Since
                                      > the slow-down can be significant for midsize files, we will certainly
                                      > need to mention in the :help that disabling the progress bar will make
                                      > the conversion faster. Maybe we should only show the progress bar
                                      > after some amount of time has elapsed? We could suppress the
                                      > redrawstatus until 10 seconds have passed, or something like that. Any
                                      > thoughts?
                                      >
                                      > Secondly, the precalculated version is not really any faster than the
                                      > full floating-point calculation every cycle. I don't really have an
                                      > opinion of which method gives more readable code. Does anyone else
                                      > have any opinions on which version to keep? I think it would be
                                      > possible to do away with floating point calculations entirely using
                                      > the precalculated version; currently floating point is only used in
                                      > the calculate_ticks function. This might be desireable so that we can
                                      > remove the dependence on the +float feature, which is not marked with
                                      > a "smallest version" indicator in :help +feature-list. This apparently
                                      > means it is "system dependent". Does this mean float is pretty much
                                      > always included, unless it is explicitly removed? How common are Vims
                                      > without floating-point support? I already added use of the split()
                                      > function, which was added in version 7, so this won't work on really
                                      > old Vims...but do we want to support Vim 7.1 and earlier?
                                      >
                                    • ZyX
                                      Ответ на сообщение «Re: Progress indicator for :TOhtml command», присланное в 19:39:15 05 июня 2010, Суббота,
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Jun 5, 2010
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Ответ на сообщение «Re: Progress indicator for :TOhtml command»,
                                        присланное в 19:39:15 05 июня 2010, Суббота,
                                        отправитель Benjamin Fritz:

                                        A small benchmark for your and mine scripts:
                                        user system cpu total Relative
                                        mine, no progress 93,07 10,82 99% 1:44,06 + 5%
                                        mine, only per cents and bar 95,77 10,92 99% 1:46,94 + 8%
                                        mine, %, bar and lines 125,59 14,80 99% 2:20,83 +43%
                                        2html from vim-7.2.303 97,34 1,16 99% 1:38,64 + 0%
                                        your 2html, no progress 77,31 0,99 99% 1:18,55 -20%
                                        your 2html, with progress 100,57 1,20 99% 1:42,76 + 4%

                                        Commands:
                                        # mine, no progress
                                        time vim messages -c 'set ft=messages | execute "%FormatCommand format html" | qa!'
                                        # mine, only % and bar
                                        time vim messages -c 'set ft=messages | let g:formatOptions={"ShowProgress": 1} | execute "%FormatCommand format
                                        html" | qa!'
                                        # mine, %, bar and lines
                                        time vim messages -c 'set ft=messages | let g:formatOptions={"ShowProgress": 2} | execute "%FormatCommand format
                                        html" | qa!'
                                        # 2html, your with progress and 2html from vim-7.2.303
                                        # Difference is that in second case I created a symlink to your file in
                                        # .vim/syntax directory
                                        time vim messages -c 'set ft=messages | execute "TOhtml" | qa!'
                                        # your 2html, with progress
                                        time vim messages -c 'set ft=messages | let g:html_no_progress=1 | execute "TOhtml" | qa!'

                                        You can download messages file here: (1,1M uncompressed, 77K compressed):
                                        http://kp-pav.narod.ru/messages.xz
                                        My script is located here (see version 1.2):
                                        http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=3113

                                        I do not know what exactly is a problem, but your progress is too slow.


                                        Текст сообщения:
                                        > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Benjamin Fritz <fritzophrenic@...> wrote:
                                        > > This version is still not fast enough though. It is about 30% slower
                                        > > when the progress bar is enabled than when it is disabled. While I
                                        > > consider it a good tradeoff in most cases, we could certainly make it
                                        > > better.
                                        > >
                                        > > It would probably be faster to pre-calculate the line numbers needed
                                        > > to advance the progress bar rather than doing a bunch of
                                        > > floating-point math every cycle.
                                        >
                                        > I've attached a new version which pre-calculates the (integer) line
                                        > numbers needed to advance the progress bar. Now all the floating point
                                        > math is done once, up front.
                                        >
                                        > The difference is not really very perceptible. I timed the execution
                                        > on two files. First, I did the 5148-line autoload/phpcomplete.vim
                                        > script. Timings were as follows on my laptop:
                                        >
                                        > progress disabled:
                                        > average: 46 seconds
                                        >
                                        > floating-point progress:
                                        > average: 61 seconds
                                        > slowdown: 15 seconds longer than without progress bar
                                        > percentage: 33% longer than without progress bar
                                        >
                                        > precalculated progress:
                                        > average: 62 seconds
                                        > slowdown: 16 seconds longer than without progress bar
                                        > percentage: 35% longer than without progress bar
                                        >
                                        > Next I did a 33258-line C code file:
                                        >
                                        > progress disabled:
                                        > average: 691 seconds
                                        >
                                        > floating-point progress:
                                        > average: 716 seconds
                                        > slowdown: 25 seconds longer than without progress bar
                                        > percentage: 4% longer than without progress bar
                                        >
                                        > precalculated progress:
                                        > average: 711 seconds
                                        > slowdown: 20 seconds longer than without progress bar
                                        > percentage: 3% longer than without progress bar
                                        >
                                        > I also did a number of very small sections of files (my usual use case
                                        > for 2html) and did not notice any significant slowing; it only takes
                                        > 1-2 seconds longer for a 100 or 200 line selection.
                                        >
                                        > I take a few things from this.
                                        >
                                        > First of all, I don't think we'll get much performance improvement
                                        > with this method. I do not know whether it is setting the status line
                                        > and redrawing it, or whether it is the use of the object-oriented
                                        > style functions, but it would probably require a different approach to
                                        > get a significant speedup. I certainly like the look a lot better than
                                        > the echo method, even if we could get echon working. Is a 10-20 second
                                        > slow-down acceptable on large numbers of lines, if the normal
                                        > execution time is measured in minutes anyway? To me, it certainly is.
                                        > If something is going to be taking more than a few minutes, I want a
                                        > progress bar to tell me whether it's worth letting it continue. Since
                                        > the slow-down can be significant for midsize files, we will certainly
                                        > need to mention in the :help that disabling the progress bar will make
                                        > the conversion faster. Maybe we should only show the progress bar
                                        > after some amount of time has elapsed? We could suppress the
                                        > redrawstatus until 10 seconds have passed, or something like that. Any
                                        > thoughts?
                                        >
                                        > Secondly, the precalculated version is not really any faster than the
                                        > full floating-point calculation every cycle. I don't really have an
                                        > opinion of which method gives more readable code. Does anyone else
                                        > have any opinions on which version to keep? I think it would be
                                        > possible to do away with floating point calculations entirely using
                                        > the precalculated version; currently floating point is only used in
                                        > the calculate_ticks function. This might be desireable so that we can
                                        > remove the dependence on the +float feature, which is not marked with
                                        > a "smallest version" indicator in :help +feature-list. This apparently
                                        > means it is "system dependent". Does this mean float is pretty much
                                        > always included, unless it is explicitly removed? How common are Vims
                                        > without floating-point support? I already added use of the split()
                                        > function, which was added in version 7, so this won't work on really
                                        > old Vims...but do we want to support Vim 7.1 and earlier?
                                        >
                                      • ZyX
                                        Ответ на сообщение «Re: Progress indicator for :TOhtml command», присланное в 19:39:15 05 июня 2010, Суббота,
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Jun 5, 2010
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Ответ на сообщение «Re: Progress indicator for :TOhtml command»,
                                          присланное в 19:39:15 05 июня 2010, Суббота,
                                          отправитель Benjamin Fritz:

                                          It occures that the problem is not floating-point math: the attached patch
                                          removes this math but does not add any perfomance. It also removes recalculating
                                          progress bar width (you just used used some generic progress bar?) and
                                          needs_redraw. Also, why you forbid profiling progress bar functions? It is also
                                          fixed.

                                          Текст сообщения:
                                          > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Benjamin Fritz <fritzophrenic@...>
                                          wrote:
                                          > > This version is still not fast enough though. It is about 30% slower
                                          > > when the progress bar is enabled than when it is disabled. While I
                                          > > consider it a good tradeoff in most cases, we could certainly make it
                                          > > better.
                                          > >
                                          > > It would probably be faster to pre-calculate the line numbers needed
                                          > > to advance the progress bar rather than doing a bunch of
                                          > > floating-point math every cycle.
                                          >
                                          > I've attached a new version which pre-calculates the (integer) line
                                          > numbers needed to advance the progress bar. Now all the floating point
                                          > math is done once, up front.
                                          >
                                          > The difference is not really very perceptible. I timed the execution
                                          > on two files. First, I did the 5148-line autoload/phpcomplete.vim
                                          > script. Timings were as follows on my laptop:
                                          >
                                          > progress disabled:
                                          > average: 46 seconds
                                          >
                                          > floating-point progress:
                                          > average: 61 seconds
                                          > slowdown: 15 seconds longer than without progress bar
                                          > percentage: 33% longer than without progress bar
                                          >
                                          > precalculated progress:
                                          > average: 62 seconds
                                          > slowdown: 16 seconds longer than without progress bar
                                          > percentage: 35% longer than without progress bar
                                          >
                                          > Next I did a 33258-line C code file:
                                          >
                                          > progress disabled:
                                          > average: 691 seconds
                                          >
                                          > floating-point progress:
                                          > average: 716 seconds
                                          > slowdown: 25 seconds longer than without progress bar
                                          > percentage: 4% longer than without progress bar
                                          >
                                          > precalculated progress:
                                          > average: 711 seconds
                                          > slowdown: 20 seconds longer than without progress bar
                                          > percentage: 3% longer than without progress bar
                                          >
                                          > I also did a number of very small sections of files (my usual use case
                                          > for 2html) and did not notice any significant slowing; it only takes
                                          > 1-2 seconds longer for a 100 or 200 line selection.
                                          >
                                          > I take a few things from this.
                                          >
                                          > First of all, I don't think we'll get much performance improvement
                                          > with this method. I do not know whether it is setting the status line
                                          > and redrawing it, or whether it is the use of the object-oriented
                                          > style functions, but it would probably require a different approach to
                                          > get a significant speedup. I certainly like the look a lot better than
                                          > the echo method, even if we could get echon working. Is a 10-20 second
                                          > slow-down acceptable on large numbers of lines, if the normal
                                          > execution time is measured in minutes anyway? To me, it certainly is.
                                          > If something is going to be taking more than a few minutes, I want a
                                          > progress bar to tell me whether it's worth letting it continue. Since
                                          > the slow-down can be significant for midsize files, we will certainly
                                          > need to mention in the :help that disabling the progress bar will make
                                          > the conversion faster. Maybe we should only show the progress bar
                                          > after some amount of time has elapsed? We could suppress the
                                          > redrawstatus until 10 seconds have passed, or something like that. Any
                                          > thoughts?
                                          >
                                          > Secondly, the precalculated version is not really any faster than the
                                          > full floating-point calculation every cycle. I don't really have an
                                          > opinion of which method gives more readable code. Does anyone else
                                          > have any opinions on which version to keep? I think it would be
                                          > possible to do away with floating point calculations entirely using
                                          > the precalculated version; currently floating point is only used in
                                          > the calculate_ticks function. This might be desireable so that we can
                                          > remove the dependence on the +float feature, which is not marked with
                                          > a "smallest version" indicator in :help +feature-list. This apparently
                                          > means it is "system dependent". Does this mean float is pretty much
                                          > always included, unless it is explicitly removed? How common are Vims
                                          > without floating-point support? I already added use of the split()
                                          > function, which was added in version 7, so this won't work on really
                                          > old Vims...but do we want to support Vim 7.1 and earlier?
                                          >
                                        • Ben Fritz
                                          ... I m sorry I don t follow. You re saying that a 4% increase in time for the progress bar, and a 20% decrease without the progress bar, is too slow ? And
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Jun 5, 2010
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            On Jun 5, 6:26 pm, ZyX <zyx....@...> wrote:
                                            > A small benchmark for your and mine scripts:
                                            >                               user    system  cpu  total      Relative
                                            > mine, no progress              93,07  10,82   99%  1:44,06    + 5%
                                            > mine, only per cents and bar   95,77  10,92   99%  1:46,94    + 8%
                                            > mine, %, bar and lines        125,59  14,80   99%  2:20,83    +43%
                                            > 2html from vim-7.2.303         97,34   1,16   99%  1:38,64    + 0%
                                            > your 2html, no progress        77,31   0,99   99%  1:18,55    -20%
                                            > your 2html, with progress     100,57   1,20   99%  1:42,76    + 4%
                                            >
                                            > [Snip]
                                            >
                                            > I do not know what exactly is a problem, but your progress is too slow.
                                            >

                                            I'm sorry I don't follow. You're saying that a 4% increase in time for
                                            the progress bar, and a 20% decrease without the progress bar, is "too
                                            slow"?

                                            And you're proposing changes that make it an 8% increase with the
                                            progress bar, or a 5% increase without?

                                            --
                                            You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
                                            Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
                                            For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
                                          • Benjamin Fritz
                                            ... Yes, I did not expect any performance gains from removing the little bit of remaining floating point, since it is just up to 100 calculations done once at
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Jun 5, 2010
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              On Jun 5, 8:10 pm, ZyX <zyx....@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > It occures that the problem is not floating-point math: the attached patch
                                              > removes this math but does not add any perfomance.
                                              >

                                              Yes, I did not expect any performance gains from removing the little
                                              bit of remaining floating point, since it is just up to 100
                                              calculations done once at the start and thereafter only when the
                                              window changes size. It is a good idea to remove, because as you point
                                              out, that amount of precision is probably unnecessary, and it would
                                              just introduce another dependency.

                                              > It also removes recalculating
                                              > progress bar width (you just used used some generic progress bar?) and
                                              > needs_redraw.

                                              Yes, we did use a generic progress bar as the starting point for this.
                                              However, I think it IS necessary to recalculate the progress bar
                                              width. This is done so that if the user changes window sizes, the
                                              progress bar will be updated accordingly. We don't want a progress bar
                                              that is too big to fit in the window, or smaller than needed for
                                              decent viewing. With your patch, if you start with the gvim window
                                              maximized, then restore the window to a smaller size, Vim goes blank
                                              until the next progress bar update, and then the progress bar is too
                                              large to fit on the screen and is truncated. This is not desirable,
                                              but perhaps it would acceptable if the performance gains are great
                                              enough. This does not seem to be the case, because I added back in the
                                              size recalculation with no noticeable performance hit.

                                              The needs_redraw was done in order to allow us to call redrawstatus on
                                              the correct window. :help redrawstatus says that it redraws the status
                                              line for the *current window* only unless you use redrawstatus! which
                                              redraws all windows. In practice, however, it does not seem to matter
                                              which window we use it in. Why is this?

                                              > Also, why you forbid profiling progress bar functions? It is also
                                              > fixed.
                                              >

                                              Good catch, that's certainly something to include going forward.

                                              There is a slight speed gain from your patch, however there is a
                                              mistaken assumption in the way you update the progress bar. Your code
                                              assumes that the progress bar will only ever update by one tick at a
                                              time. Updating the progress bar without your patch calculates the
                                              entire string every time, using repeat(). Your update simply adds one
                                              to the colored string of spaces, and subtracts one from the uncolored.
                                              This does not work if the user folds away some text and does not use
                                              dynamic folding, it does not work when there are fewer than 100 lines
                                              in the text to convert, and it does not work for the second use of the
                                              progress bar, where there are usually fewer that 100 highlight groups
                                              to process.

                                              I corrected this problem and initially, the performance still seemed
                                              to be improved over the previous version. However, I noticed afterward
                                              that part of the patch removes the "sleep 100m" from the "processing
                                              classes" step. I took this line out of the original script for a fair
                                              comparison, and got the following timings, converting
                                              autoload/netrw.vim (7764 lines) with dynamic folding enabled:

                                              Before patch: 50 seconds
                                              Patch from ZyX: 49 seconds
                                              Fixed patch: 51 seconds

                                              So, it looks like the patch is actually no faster, and potentially
                                              slightly slower than the precalculated version.

                                              I have therefore attached an updated version of my last submission,
                                              which removes floating point from the calculate_ticks function, and
                                              incorporates some of the other improvements from ZyX.

                                              This version takes 50 seconds to convert netrw, if I comment out the
                                              sleep 100 line. Do we want this line in the code? Without it, if there
                                              are not very many highlight groups to process, the "processing
                                              classes" bar flashes by without being seen. This happens anyway for
                                              very small selections. I don't know how I feel about deliberately
                                              slowing down the execution. I have left it commented out for now.

                                              I am very curious about this:

                                              " Note that you must use len(split) instead of len() if you want to use
                                              " unicode in title
                                              let self.pb_len = max_len-len(split(self.title, '\zs'))-3-4-2

                                              Can someone explain the problem described in the comment a little
                                              better? And why does the split on '\zs' work to fix the problem?

                                              --
                                              You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
                                              Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
                                              For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
                                            • ZyX
                                              Ответ на сообщение «Re: Progress indicator for :TOhtml command», присланное в 10:59:42 06 июня 2010, Воскресенье,
                                              Message 22 of 28 , Jun 6, 2010
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Ответ на сообщение «Re: Progress indicator for :TOhtml command»,
                                                присланное в 10:59:42 06 июня 2010, Воскресенье,
                                                отправитель Benjamin Fritz:

                                                The reason why I say that progress bar is too slow is that my script does not
                                                suffer from performance decrease unless you make it redraw on each line. I will
                                                add size recalculation for my script too (I removed it from your script because
                                                I did not realize that while user can do nothing in vim he still can resize the
                                                terminal), but I do not think that this will add any performance penalty.

                                                > I am very curious about this:
                                                >
                                                > " Note that you must use len(split) instead of len() if you want to use
                                                > " unicode in title
                                                > let self.pb_len = max_len-len(split(self.title, '\zs'))-3-4-2
                                                >
                                                > Can someone explain the problem described in the comment a little
                                                > better? And why does the split on '\zs' work to fix the problem?
                                                That is because len(str) measures byte length of C string, while len(split) first
                                                splits the string into a list of characters and then measures the length of
                                                character list. If there are non-latin1 Unicode symbols and encoding is a
                                                multibyte one then length of character list is not equal to bytes count of C
                                                string.

                                                Текст сообщения:
                                                > On Jun 5, 8:10 pm, ZyX <zyx....@...> wrote:
                                                > > It occures that the problem is not floating-point math: the attached
                                                > > patch removes this math but does not add any perfomance.
                                                >
                                                > Yes, I did not expect any performance gains from removing the little
                                                > bit of remaining floating point, since it is just up to 100
                                                > calculations done once at the start and thereafter only when the
                                                > window changes size. It is a good idea to remove, because as you point
                                                > out, that amount of precision is probably unnecessary, and it would
                                                > just introduce another dependency.
                                                >
                                                > > It also removes recalculating
                                                > > progress bar width (you just used used some generic progress bar?) and
                                                > > needs_redraw.
                                                >
                                                > Yes, we did use a generic progress bar as the starting point for this.
                                                > However, I think it IS necessary to recalculate the progress bar
                                                > width. This is done so that if the user changes window sizes, the
                                                > progress bar will be updated accordingly. We don't want a progress bar
                                                > that is too big to fit in the window, or smaller than needed for
                                                > decent viewing. With your patch, if you start with the gvim window
                                                > maximized, then restore the window to a smaller size, Vim goes blank
                                                > until the next progress bar update, and then the progress bar is too
                                                > large to fit on the screen and is truncated. This is not desirable,
                                                > but perhaps it would acceptable if the performance gains are great
                                                > enough. This does not seem to be the case, because I added back in the
                                                > size recalculation with no noticeable performance hit.
                                                >
                                                > The needs_redraw was done in order to allow us to call redrawstatus on
                                                > the correct window. :help redrawstatus says that it redraws the status
                                                > line for the *current window* only unless you use redrawstatus! which
                                                > redraws all windows. In practice, however, it does not seem to matter
                                                > which window we use it in. Why is this?
                                                >
                                                > > Also, why you forbid profiling progress bar functions? It is also
                                                > > fixed.
                                                >
                                                > Good catch, that's certainly something to include going forward.
                                                >
                                                > There is a slight speed gain from your patch, however there is a
                                                > mistaken assumption in the way you update the progress bar. Your code
                                                > assumes that the progress bar will only ever update by one tick at a
                                                > time. Updating the progress bar without your patch calculates the
                                                > entire string every time, using repeat(). Your update simply adds one
                                                > to the colored string of spaces, and subtracts one from the uncolored.
                                                > This does not work if the user folds away some text and does not use
                                                > dynamic folding, it does not work when there are fewer than 100 lines
                                                > in the text to convert, and it does not work for the second use of the
                                                > progress bar, where there are usually fewer that 100 highlight groups
                                                > to process.
                                                >
                                                > I corrected this problem and initially, the performance still seemed
                                                > to be improved over the previous version. However, I noticed afterward
                                                > that part of the patch removes the "sleep 100m" from the "processing
                                                > classes" step. I took this line out of the original script for a fair
                                                > comparison, and got the following timings, converting
                                                > autoload/netrw.vim (7764 lines) with dynamic folding enabled:
                                                >
                                                > Before patch: 50 seconds
                                                > Patch from ZyX: 49 seconds
                                                > Fixed patch: 51 seconds
                                                >
                                                > So, it looks like the patch is actually no faster, and potentially
                                                > slightly slower than the precalculated version.
                                                >
                                                > I have therefore attached an updated version of my last submission,
                                                > which removes floating point from the calculate_ticks function, and
                                                > incorporates some of the other improvements from ZyX.
                                                >
                                                > This version takes 50 seconds to convert netrw, if I comment out the
                                                > sleep 100 line. Do we want this line in the code? Without it, if there
                                                > are not very many highlight groups to process, the "processing
                                                > classes" bar flashes by without being seen. This happens anyway for
                                                > very small selections. I don't know how I feel about deliberately
                                                > slowing down the execution. I have left it commented out for now.
                                                >
                                                > I am very curious about this:
                                                >
                                                > " Note that you must use len(split) instead of len() if you want to use
                                                > " unicode in title
                                                > let self.pb_len = max_len-len(split(self.title, '\zs'))-3-4-2
                                                >
                                                > Can someone explain the problem described in the comment a little
                                                > better? And why does the split on '\zs' work to fix the problem?
                                                >
                                              • ZyX
                                                Ответ на сообщение «Re: Progress indicator for :TOhtml command», присланное в 10:59:42 06 июня 2010, Воскресенье,
                                                Message 23 of 28 , Jun 6, 2010
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Ответ на сообщение «Re: Progress indicator for :TOhtml command»,
                                                  присланное в 10:59:42 06 июня 2010, Воскресенье,
                                                  отправитель Benjamin Fritz:

                                                  It is odd: the only problem in your script is redrawstatus which is called only
                                                  100 times (without styles, 109 with) (>21 seconds), while in my script
                                                  redrawstatus called 328 times takes less than a second.

                                                  Second problem with the whole 2html is buffer switching, I think you should
                                                  consider instead of doing constant switches, save every line in a List and only
                                                  after everything is finished create a new buffer and call setline(1, s:list).
                                                  Note that new versions of my script are faster (but not much) then your 2html
                                                  because I use this technique.

                                                  And, why do you calculate length of the title at each progressbarupdate?
                                                  Attached patch fixes this and the case when there is no space for progress bar.

                                                  Текст сообщения:
                                                  > On Jun 5, 8:10 pm, ZyX <zyx....@...> wrote:
                                                  > > It occures that the problem is not floating-point math: the attached
                                                  > > patch removes this math but does not add any perfomance.
                                                  >
                                                  > Yes, I did not expect any performance gains from removing the little
                                                  > bit of remaining floating point, since it is just up to 100
                                                  > calculations done once at the start and thereafter only when the
                                                  > window changes size. It is a good idea to remove, because as you point
                                                  > out, that amount of precision is probably unnecessary, and it would
                                                  > just introduce another dependency.
                                                  >
                                                  > > It also removes recalculating
                                                  > > progress bar width (you just used used some generic progress bar?) and
                                                  > > needs_redraw.
                                                  >
                                                  > Yes, we did use a generic progress bar as the starting point for this.
                                                  > However, I think it IS necessary to recalculate the progress bar
                                                  > width. This is done so that if the user changes window sizes, the
                                                  > progress bar will be updated accordingly. We don't want a progress bar
                                                  > that is too big to fit in the window, or smaller than needed for
                                                  > decent viewing. With your patch, if you start with the gvim window
                                                  > maximized, then restore the window to a smaller size, Vim goes blank
                                                  > until the next progress bar update, and then the progress bar is too
                                                  > large to fit on the screen and is truncated. This is not desirable,
                                                  > but perhaps it would acceptable if the performance gains are great
                                                  > enough. This does not seem to be the case, because I added back in the
                                                  > size recalculation with no noticeable performance hit.
                                                  >
                                                  > The needs_redraw was done in order to allow us to call redrawstatus on
                                                  > the correct window. :help redrawstatus says that it redraws the status
                                                  > line for the *current window* only unless you use redrawstatus! which
                                                  > redraws all windows. In practice, however, it does not seem to matter
                                                  > which window we use it in. Why is this?
                                                  >
                                                  > > Also, why you forbid profiling progress bar functions? It is also
                                                  > > fixed.
                                                  >
                                                  > Good catch, that's certainly something to include going forward.
                                                  >
                                                  > There is a slight speed gain from your patch, however there is a
                                                  > mistaken assumption in the way you update the progress bar. Your code
                                                  > assumes that the progress bar will only ever update by one tick at a
                                                  > time. Updating the progress bar without your patch calculates the
                                                  > entire string every time, using repeat(). Your update simply adds one
                                                  > to the colored string of spaces, and subtracts one from the uncolored.
                                                  > This does not work if the user folds away some text and does not use
                                                  > dynamic folding, it does not work when there are fewer than 100 lines
                                                  > in the text to convert, and it does not work for the second use of the
                                                  > progress bar, where there are usually fewer that 100 highlight groups
                                                  > to process.
                                                  >
                                                  > I corrected this problem and initially, the performance still seemed
                                                  > to be improved over the previous version. However, I noticed afterward
                                                  > that part of the patch removes the "sleep 100m" from the "processing
                                                  > classes" step. I took this line out of the original script for a fair
                                                  > comparison, and got the following timings, converting
                                                  > autoload/netrw.vim (7764 lines) with dynamic folding enabled:
                                                  >
                                                  > Before patch: 50 seconds
                                                  > Patch from ZyX: 49 seconds
                                                  > Fixed patch: 51 seconds
                                                  >
                                                  > So, it looks like the patch is actually no faster, and potentially
                                                  > slightly slower than the precalculated version.
                                                  >
                                                  > I have therefore attached an updated version of my last submission,
                                                  > which removes floating point from the calculate_ticks function, and
                                                  > incorporates some of the other improvements from ZyX.
                                                  >
                                                  > This version takes 50 seconds to convert netrw, if I comment out the
                                                  > sleep 100 line. Do we want this line in the code? Without it, if there
                                                  > are not very many highlight groups to process, the "processing
                                                  > classes" bar flashes by without being seen. This happens anyway for
                                                  > very small selections. I don't know how I feel about deliberately
                                                  > slowing down the execution. I have left it commented out for now.
                                                  >
                                                  > I am very curious about this:
                                                  >
                                                  > " Note that you must use len(split) instead of len() if you want to use
                                                  > " unicode in title
                                                  > let self.pb_len = max_len-len(split(self.title, '\zs'))-3-4-2
                                                  >
                                                  > Can someone explain the problem described in the comment a little
                                                  > better? And why does the split on '\zs' work to fix the problem?
                                                  >
                                                • ZyX
                                                  Ответ на сообщение «Re: Progress indicator for :TOhtml command», присланное в 13:03:23 06 июня 2010, Воскресенье,
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , Jun 6, 2010
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Ответ на сообщение «Re: Progress indicator for :TOhtml command»,
                                                    присланное в 13:03:23 06 июня 2010, Воскресенье,
                                                    отправитель ZyX:

                                                    Yes, buffer switching is the problem: attached patch uses my technique (save
                                                    everything in a list, not in a buffer) and here are the results:

                                                    My script:
                                                    1:05,09 w/o progress
                                                    1:08,40 ShowProgress=1
                                                    1:20,59 ShowProgress=2
                                                    Your 2html:
                                                    1:19,67 w/o progress
                                                    1:44,74 with progress
                                                    Patched 2html:
                                                    1:03,51 w/o progress
                                                    1:05,08 with progress

                                                    Apply patch to your 2html, not to previously patched version.

                                                    Текст сообщения:
                                                    > Ответ на сообщение «Re: Progress indicator for :TOhtml command»,
                                                    > присланное в 10:59:42 06 июня 2010, Воскресенье,
                                                    > отправитель Benjamin Fritz:
                                                    >
                                                    > It is odd: the only problem in your script is redrawstatus which is called
                                                    > only 100 times (without styles, 109 with) (>21 seconds), while in my
                                                    > script redrawstatus called 328 times takes less than a second.
                                                    >
                                                    > Second problem with the whole 2html is buffer switching, I think you should
                                                    > consider instead of doing constant switches, save every line in a List and
                                                    > only after everything is finished create a new buffer and call setline(1,
                                                    > s:list). Note that new versions of my script are faster (but not much)
                                                    > then your 2html because I use this technique.
                                                    >
                                                    > And, why do you calculate length of the title at each progressbarupdate?
                                                    > Attached patch fixes this and the case when there is no space for progress
                                                    > bar.
                                                    >
                                                    > Текст сообщения:
                                                    > > On Jun 5, 8:10 pm, ZyX <zyx....@...> wrote:
                                                    > > > It occures that the problem is not floating-point math: the attached
                                                    > > > patch removes this math but does not add any perfomance.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Yes, I did not expect any performance gains from removing the little
                                                    > > bit of remaining floating point, since it is just up to 100
                                                    > > calculations done once at the start and thereafter only when the
                                                    > > window changes size. It is a good idea to remove, because as you point
                                                    > > out, that amount of precision is probably unnecessary, and it would
                                                    > > just introduce another dependency.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > > It also removes recalculating
                                                    > > > progress bar width (you just used used some generic progress bar?) and
                                                    > > > needs_redraw.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Yes, we did use a generic progress bar as the starting point for this.
                                                    > > However, I think it IS necessary to recalculate the progress bar
                                                    > > width. This is done so that if the user changes window sizes, the
                                                    > > progress bar will be updated accordingly. We don't want a progress bar
                                                    > > that is too big to fit in the window, or smaller than needed for
                                                    > > decent viewing. With your patch, if you start with the gvim window
                                                    > > maximized, then restore the window to a smaller size, Vim goes blank
                                                    > > until the next progress bar update, and then the progress bar is too
                                                    > > large to fit on the screen and is truncated. This is not desirable,
                                                    > > but perhaps it would acceptable if the performance gains are great
                                                    > > enough. This does not seem to be the case, because I added back in the
                                                    > > size recalculation with no noticeable performance hit.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > The needs_redraw was done in order to allow us to call redrawstatus on
                                                    > > the correct window. :help redrawstatus says that it redraws the status
                                                    > > line for the *current window* only unless you use redrawstatus! which
                                                    > > redraws all windows. In practice, however, it does not seem to matter
                                                    > > which window we use it in. Why is this?
                                                    > >
                                                    > > > Also, why you forbid profiling progress bar functions? It is also
                                                    > > > fixed.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Good catch, that's certainly something to include going forward.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > There is a slight speed gain from your patch, however there is a
                                                    > > mistaken assumption in the way you update the progress bar. Your code
                                                    > > assumes that the progress bar will only ever update by one tick at a
                                                    > > time. Updating the progress bar without your patch calculates the
                                                    > > entire string every time, using repeat(). Your update simply adds one
                                                    > > to the colored string of spaces, and subtracts one from the uncolored.
                                                    > > This does not work if the user folds away some text and does not use
                                                    > > dynamic folding, it does not work when there are fewer than 100 lines
                                                    > > in the text to convert, and it does not work for the second use of the
                                                    > > progress bar, where there are usually fewer that 100 highlight groups
                                                    > > to process.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > I corrected this problem and initially, the performance still seemed
                                                    > > to be improved over the previous version. However, I noticed afterward
                                                    > > that part of the patch removes the "sleep 100m" from the "processing
                                                    > > classes" step. I took this line out of the original script for a fair
                                                    > > comparison, and got the following timings, converting
                                                    > > autoload/netrw.vim (7764 lines) with dynamic folding enabled:
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Before patch: 50 seconds
                                                    > > Patch from ZyX: 49 seconds
                                                    > > Fixed patch: 51 seconds
                                                    > >
                                                    > > So, it looks like the patch is actually no faster, and potentially
                                                    > > slightly slower than the precalculated version.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > I have therefore attached an updated version of my last submission,
                                                    > > which removes floating point from the calculate_ticks function, and
                                                    > > incorporates some of the other improvements from ZyX.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > This version takes 50 seconds to convert netrw, if I comment out the
                                                    > > sleep 100 line. Do we want this line in the code? Without it, if there
                                                    > > are not very many highlight groups to process, the "processing
                                                    > > classes" bar flashes by without being seen. This happens anyway for
                                                    > > very small selections. I don't know how I feel about deliberately
                                                    > > slowing down the execution. I have left it commented out for now.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > I am very curious about this:
                                                    > >
                                                    > > " Note that you must use len(split) instead of len() if you want to use
                                                    > > " unicode in title
                                                    > > let self.pb_len = max_len-len(split(self.title, '\zs'))-3-4-2
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Can someone explain the problem described in the comment a little
                                                    > > better? And why does the split on '\zs' work to fix the problem?
                                                    >
                                                  • Benjamin Fritz
                                                    ... Very nice. This is a huge performance boost, and the times are similar with and without the progress bar even with my big 33000 line C file which I used
                                                    Message 25 of 28 , Jun 7, 2010
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 5:10 AM, ZyX <zyx.vim@...> wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > Yes, buffer switching is the problem: attached patch uses my technique (save
                                                      > everything in a list, not in a buffer) and here are the results:
                                                      >
                                                      > My script:
                                                      > 1:05,09 w/o progress
                                                      > 1:08,40 ShowProgress=1
                                                      > 1:20,59 ShowProgress=2
                                                      > Your 2html:
                                                      > 1:19,67 w/o progress
                                                      > 1:44,74 with progress
                                                      > Patched 2html:
                                                      > 1:03,51 w/o progress
                                                      > 1:05,08 with progress
                                                      >

                                                      Very nice. This is a huge performance boost, and the times are similar
                                                      with and without the progress bar even with my big 33000 line C file
                                                      which I used previously.

                                                      I think it's about ready now. I've added another progress bar for the
                                                      time taken to collect fold information for dynamic folding, and
                                                      corrected a few minor bugs in the patch related to dynamic folding. I
                                                      did end up adding back in a :sleep to the class processing loop, but I
                                                      reduced the time it sleeps. I'm certainly open to removing this.

                                                      I've attached the whole file so we don't get into a "which patches do
                                                      I need?" quagmire.

                                                      --
                                                      You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
                                                      Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
                                                      For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.