Subject: Re: Commit: rework edit methods
From: Aaron Lehmann (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Feb 10 2001 - 18:24:49 CST
On Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 07:12:00PM -0500, Dom Lachowicz wrote:
> Martin wrote:
> > This is all good stuff but to me the biggest "slowness" issues
> This is good. Considering that each time you press any arrow key, an edit
> method gets called and then mapped to a function and *then* translated into
> a GR_Graphics call and then mapped onto a GTK or MFC or whatever call, it
> makes sense to speed up the ap_EditMethods layer too.
I still think that it would be much nicer to just store function
pointers to the editmethods instead of strings of their names. But I
suppose that the strings do make eventual extensibility much easier.
It would kind of suck to be as slow as emacs though.
> Double buffering makes lots of sense. I'll look into this for
> GR_UnixGraphics. GnomeCanvas does this nicely, for example.
I hope it wouldn't inflate our memory usage very much.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sat Feb 10 2001 - 18:24:58 CST