Hi Nicolas, 2015ko abenudak 5an, Nicolas Goaziou-ek idatzi zuen: > > This is a limitation of our current way to fontify a buffer. Changing it > implies some serious work, which I'd rather spend on switching to > syntax-based (instead of regexp-based) fontification.
Indeed. However, this code was needlessly slow because it failed to take advantage of short-circuit evaluation. I pushed a fix in 046310d. > > However, this report raises an interesting question about footnotes: > should we still support plain (e.g., "[1]") footnotes in Org documents? > > The pattern is very common an regularly introduces false positives. > Also, IIRC, it was introduced for non-Org buffers (e.g., in Message mode > buffers), to provide some common features with "footnote.el" library. > > I think we could remove this kind of footnotes, and yet preserve > `org-footnote-normalize' to change Org footnotes into these ones, for > foreign documents. > > WDYT? Do [1]-type footnotes present other performance problems today? I’d rather see if simple solutions to those can be effective before going for a breaking change to syntax. Then there’s the fact that syntax fontification (incl. org-elements cache) is going to have such different performance characteristics I’m not sure we can predict where the bottlenecks will be. -- Aaron Ecay
