From xemacs-m  Tue Feb 25 09:10:39 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 JAA05103
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:10:22 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail.esrin.esa.it (plod.esrin.esa.it) by maes.esrin.esa.it with SMTP id AA15659
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>); Tue, 25 Feb 1997 16:10:25 +0100
Received: from penelope.esa.it by mail.esrin.esa.it (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA17578; Tue, 25 Feb 97 15:10:26 GMT
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 97 15:10:26 GMT
Message-Id: <9702251510.AA17578@mail.esrin.esa.it>
Received: by penelope.esa.it (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA14227; Tue, 25 Feb 97 16:15:07 +0100
From: Simon Marshall <Simon.Marshall@esrin.esa.it>
To: XEmacs Beta <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>
In-Reply-To: <yv94tf1gdjq.fsf@ynde.idt.unit.no> (message from Sudeep Kumar
	Palat on 25 Feb 1997 15:34:17 +0100)
Subject: Re: lazy lock cpu usage
Reply-To: Simon Marshall <Simon.Marshall@esrin.esa.it>

JL> What? Why should lazy lock need more CPU when finished with
JL> fontifying? Especially with laz-lock-hide-invisible to t should make
JL> not a difference _after_ all the buffer has been fontified stealthily.

Sudeep> Don't ask me.  From what I make of Simon's reply earlier to the
Sudeep> list, I thinks some extra processing is required even after
Sudeep> fontifying.

Yes, once stealth has completed in a buffer, as an optimisation,
lazy-lock.el could even turn itself off in that buffer.  Since version 1
doesn't have deferral I don't think it would cause surprises.

(What I was referring to with Sudeep was scrolling into fontified 
areas, not the special case where the whole buffer is fontified.)

