From xemacs-m  Thu Mar  6 10:33:23 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 KAA21115
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 10:33:12 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail.esrin.esa.it (plod.esrin.esa.it) by maes.esrin.esa.it with SMTP id AA01765
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>); Thu, 6 Mar 1997 17:33:15 +0100
Received: from penelope.esa.it by mail.esrin.esa.it (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA15504; Thu, 6 Mar 97 16:33:18 GMT
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 97 16:33:18 GMT
Message-Id: <9703061633.AA15504@mail.esrin.esa.it>
Received: by penelope.esa.it (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA20358; Thu, 6 Mar 97 17:37:54 +0100
From: Simon Marshall <Simon.Marshall@esrin.esa.it>
To: XEmacs Beta <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>
In-Reply-To: <199703061542.KAA00196@fragola.hr.lucent.com> (message from
	Rajappa Iyer on Thu, 06 Mar 1997 10:42:28 -0500)
Subject: Re: window-scroll-functions and lazy-lock
Reply-To: Simon Marshall <Simon.Marshall@esrin.esa.it>

RI> In any case, I can only conclude that the startling difference in
RI> speed with font-lock mode is on using lazy-lock can be attributed to
RI> the presence or absence of window-scroll-functions.

Yes, though it's not the only factor.  Version 2 does on-the-fly deferral
too.  Probably fontification is different enough to be a factor too.

