🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <692@augean.OZ>  writes:
    In article <1561@aber-cs.UUCP> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
    }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
    }
    }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?

They are *cumulative times*; this means that adding the second character
costs less than a centisecond in usert time, while the cost in system time
is almost all redisplay.

However your point that redisplay is *expensive* is very true. How much of
this is due to GNU emacs, and how much to the incredible slowness of my
machine's frame buffer, I don't know. One should really profile  (both
these points I have already made in my posting... :->).
-- 
Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi           | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth        | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk