🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1561@aber-cs.UUCP> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
}
}OPERATION	Emacs 18.54	MicroGNU 2a	Jove 4.12
}
}		user	sys	user	sys	user	sys
}
}1)  startup	0.45	1.10	0.02	0.10	0.12	0.67
}2)  C-X C-F	0.51	1.96	0.71	0.44	0.66	1.18
}3)  C-X C-Q	0.54	2.08	0.74	0.47	0.66	1.20
}4)  SP		0.62	2.26	0.74	0.48	0.66	1.20
}5)  M->		0.65	2.45	0.78	0.53	0.67	1.26
}6)  SP		0.71	2.58	0.78	0.53	0.67	1.26
}7)  SP		0.71	2.70	0.78	0.53	0.67	1.26
}8)  M-<		0.75	3.24	0.82	0.56	0.69	1.36
}9)  SP		0.82	3.53	0.82	0.75	0.69	1.36
}
}6) Insert as space as the last chracter. This moves the gap again, and
}it shows. Also redisplay.
}
}7) Add a second space at the end. Just redisplay really, and minimal as to
}that.

Your data does not justify your conclusion. If the .71 sec for GNU
emacs in 6 is (mainly) due to the movement of the gap, then why is the
time identical for 7 when, as you say, no gap movement occurs? My guess
(from the time GNUemacs is spending in system state) that it is doing
more redisplay than the other two and you would be better spent looking
for improvements in the redisplay algorithm.



-- 
 Ian Dall           life (n). A sexually transmitted disease which afflicts
                              some people more severely than others.
idall@augean.oz