From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#16832: Emacs goes crazy when deleting lines Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 19:36:01 +0200 Message-ID: <83wqfvbbzy.fsf@gnu.org> References: <86d2igl9x3.fsf@somewhere.org> <861tys93qy.fsf@somewhere.org> <86eh2r4ipj.fsf@somewhere.org> <86bnxugmkv.fsf@somewhere.org> <83txbly9xq.fsf@gnu.org> <86y50xirtv.fsf@somewhere.org> <861ty4ojm1.fsf@somewhere.org> <83y50bbh01.fsf@gnu.org> <87ob17sag9.fsf@gmail.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38550) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WOsVK-0003oj-6X for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 13:36:19 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WOsVE-0004ZQ-Tk for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 13:36:14 -0400 Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]:53209) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WOsVE-0004ZM-L9 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 13:36:08 -0400 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0N2H00L00MZ1PX00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 19:36:07 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <87ob17sag9.fsf@gmail.com> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Nicolas Goaziou Cc: fni-news@pirilampo.org, emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, 16832@debbugs.gnu.org > From: Nicolas Goaziou > Cc: Fabrice Niessen , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, 16832@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 17:17:26 +0100 > > > (while (search-forward "call_" nil t) > > (save-excursion > > (goto-char (match-beginning 0)) > > (when (looking-at org-babel-inline-lob-one-liner-regexp) > > (throw 'exit (cons 'inline-babel-call (point))))))))) > > This one is an updated function, which doesn't match posted report. Do you happen to know, or can measure, how much faster is the latest version? Given the timing provided by the OP, it'd have to be at least 100 times faster, to avoid annoying delays after each command.