From xemacs-m  Tue Feb 25 12:47:30 1997
Received: from atreides.eng.mindspring.net (atreides.eng.mindspring.net [207.69.183.11])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA07130
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 12:47:28 -0600 (CST)
Received: (qmail 30481 invoked by uid 52477); 25 Feb 1997 18:46:59 -0000
Sender: sj@atreides.eng.mindspring.net
To: XEmacs beta <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>
Subject: Re: [19.15-b95 / 20.1-b2] lazy-lock lossage?
References: <vk67zhvr5f.fsf@cdc.noaa.gov> 	<u9lo8dhora.fsf@neal.ctd.comsat.com> 	<vk3eulvpur.fsf@cdc.noaa.gov> <199702242235.PAA23295@branagh.ta52.lanl.gov> <m2d8tplq8v.fsf@altair.xemacs.org> <m3rai5fz3s.fsf@jens.metrix.de> <m2iv3h71bx.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.101)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Sudish Joseph <sj@eng.mindspring.net>
Date: 25 Feb 1997 13:46:59 -0500
In-Reply-To: Steven L Baur's message of 25 Feb 1997 00:10:42 -0800
Message-ID: <yviaohd867vg.fsf@atreides.eng.mindspring.net>
Lines: 13
X-Mailer: Red Gnus v0.82/XEmacs 20.0

Steven L Baur writes:
> I don't have any problems about integrating the necessary patches (if
> they're doable), but given how much better fast-lock works on current
> XEmacs -vs- lazy-lock I don't think it's worth it.

No patches from me, but: this is a preference thing and I've never
liked fast-lock much, but love lazy-lock. :-) IMHO, it's well worth
it.  It also does the right thing from the pov of a new user: they get
fast-on-the-fly fontification with no strange new files apprearing out
of the blue.

But, no patches,
-Sudish

