From xemacs-m  Tue Feb 25 02:14:45 1997
Received: from maes.esrin.esa.it (maes.esrin.esa.it [192.106.252.50])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA22209
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 02:14:41 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail.esrin.esa.it (plod.esrin.esa.it) by maes.esrin.esa.it with SMTP id AA10747
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>); Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:14:39 +0100
Received: from penelope.esa.it by mail.esrin.esa.it (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA13574; Tue, 25 Feb 97 08:14:41 GMT
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 97 08:14:41 GMT
Message-Id: <9702250814.AA13574@mail.esrin.esa.it>
Received: by penelope.esa.it (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA13744; Tue, 25 Feb 97 09:19:23 +0100
From: Simon Marshall <Simon.Marshall@esrin.esa.it>
To: XEmacs Beta <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>
In-Reply-To: <m3rai5fz3s.fsf@jens.metrix.de> (message from Jens Lautenbacher
	on 25 Feb 1997 02:33:59 +0100)
Subject: Re: [19.15-b95 / 20.1-b2] lazy-lock lossage?
Reply-To: Simon Marshall <Simon.Marshall@esrin.esa.it>

>> You might consider dropping back to the 1.14 + Ben Wing hacks version
>> in 19.14 too.  It may be that upgrading lazy-lock is not the right
>> thing to do.

Jens> But please don't make this the default.

Jens> This lazy lock is -- despite all the problems it seems to have --
Jens> the first one where (setq lazy-lock-hide-invisible nil) actually
Jens> works... And with this XEmacs really feels much more responsive than
Jens> before!

Jens> Let's investigate this shell/compile/grep stuff further but not back
Jens> out to some code broken in other areas.

Because of the way lazy-lock.el 1.14 + Ben Wing hacks works, and the way
the other lazy-lock.el version 1 work, I'd be surprised if the version in
b95 (lazy-lock.el 1.16) was inherently slower.  It's more likely that
there's a bug in there somewhere.

Somebody said that b94 was OK, and that had lazy-lock.el 1.15 (first to
appear in b7).  Right?  I don't have the space to keep earlier betas.

Ta, Si.

