* slow splitting
@ 1997-01-09 23:08 Chris Jones
1997-01-10 0:39 ` Karl Anderson
1997-01-10 3:55 ` Sudish Joseph
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Chris Jones @ 1997-01-09 23:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
I'm running Red on a NetBSD/mac68k box. It's running at 16MHz.
Consequently, things get a bit slow... Anyway, I've noticed that my
blood pressure stays much lower if I know what the program is doing
that is making it take so long. Consequently, I put some lambda's on
nnmail-pre-get-new-mail-hook and nnmail-prepare-incoming-header-hook
that give me messages saying, "Sorting message %d..." whenever I grab
new mail. This makes me happy.
Should I turn these hook expressions into full-fledged patches, and
send them in? The reason I'm asking is this: If you're running on a
really fast box (and you have simple splitting rules, which I don't),
those messages could just whiz by you, potentially causing some worry
because the thing's printing messages that you don't get an
opportunity to read.
I hope y'all will forgive me if I'm being too pedantic.
Chris
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Jones cjones@rupert.oscs.montana.edu
Mad scientist in training...
"Is this going to be a stand-up programming session, sir, or another bug hunt?"
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: slow splitting
1997-01-09 23:08 slow splitting Chris Jones
@ 1997-01-10 0:39 ` Karl Anderson
1997-01-10 3:55 ` Sudish Joseph
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Karl Anderson @ 1997-01-10 0:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: ding
cjones@rupert.oscs.montana.edu (Chris Jones) wrote:
>Anyway, I've noticed that my
>blood pressure stays much lower if I know what the program is doing
>that is making it take so long.
Now _this_ is something that I'd really like to see throughout emacs.
I remember playing with setting my debugger to something silly, &
debug-on-entry -ing read.
>Should I turn these hook expressions into full-fledged patches, and
>send them in? The reason I'm asking is this: If you're running on a
>really fast box (and you have simple splitting rules, which I don't),
>those messages could just whiz by you, potentially causing some worry
>because the thing's printing messages that you don't get an
>opportunity to read.
>
>I hope y'all will forgive me if I'm being too pedantic.
Well, if we're being pedantic, a simple period is enough to indicate
progress. Then nobody's blood pressure rises because a million
messages are whizzing by & possibly important ones are being lost.
Also, it'll prevent a messages buffer full of a million lines that eats
up memory. Hey, it might be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
karla@celtech.com Karl Anderson <URL:http://www.reed.edu/~karl>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: slow splitting
1997-01-09 23:08 slow splitting Chris Jones
1997-01-10 0:39 ` Karl Anderson
@ 1997-01-10 3:55 ` Sudish Joseph
1997-01-10 16:38 ` William M. Perry
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Sudish Joseph @ 1997-01-10 3:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
Chris Jones writes:
> Should I turn these hook expressions into full-fledged patches, and
> send them in? The reason I'm asking is this: If you're running on a
> really fast box (and you have simple splitting rules, which I don't),
> those messages could just whiz by you, potentially causing some worry
> because the thing's printing messages that you don't get an
> opportunity to read.
The jwz-enhanced GNUS that was standard with XEmacs until 19.13(12?)
had a messaging function that tried not to call 'message if messages
occured too close to each other. I do not recollect if it was based
on time or print-nth-message, but you might look it up if you have
access to that version of GNUS.
-Sudish
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: slow splitting
1997-01-10 3:55 ` Sudish Joseph
@ 1997-01-10 16:38 ` William M. Perry
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: William M. Perry @ 1997-01-10 16:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: The Ding List
Sudish Joseph writes:
>Chris Jones writes:
>> Should I turn these hook expressions into full-fledged patches, and
>> send them in? The reason I'm asking is this: If you're running on a
>> really fast box (and you have simple splitting rules, which I don't),
>> those messages could just whiz by you, potentially causing some worry
>> because the thing's printing messages that you don't get an
>> opportunity to read.
>
>The jwz-enhanced GNUS that was standard with XEmacs until 19.13(12?)
>had a messaging function that tried not to call 'message if messages
>occured too close to each other. I do not recollect if it was based
>on time or print-nth-message, but you might look it up if you have
>access to that version of GNUS.
There is a similar function in the url package that will only do it every
'n' seconds.
-bill
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1997-01-10 16:38 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1997-01-09 23:08 slow splitting Chris Jones
1997-01-10 0:39 ` Karl Anderson
1997-01-10 3:55 ` Sudish Joseph
1997-01-10 16:38 ` William M. Perry
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).