Hi Nicolas, 2015ko abenudak 5an, Nicolas Goaziou-ek idatzi zuen: > > Hello, > > Aaron Ecay <aarone...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Indeed. However, this code was needlessly slow because it failed to >> take advantage of short-circuit evaluation. > > According to the profile report, I don't understand the logic of your > patch. > >>>> - org-footnote-in-valid-context-p 4106 44% >>>> + org-inside-LaTeX-fragment-p 2380 25% >>>> + org-in-block-p 1563 16% >>>> + org-in-verbatim-emphasis 159 1% > > ISTM that `org-in-block-p' is marginally slower (15%) than > `org-inside-LaTeX-fragment-p' (9%).
I’m not sure where 15 and 9 come from. The way I read the report, org-footnote-in-valid-context-p takes 44% of the cumulative time, which is composed of org-inside-LaTeX-fragment-p (25%) + org-in-block-p (16%) + other stuff (3%). So org-inside-LaTeX-fragment-p accounts for >50% of the time spent in org-footnote-in-valid-context-p. > > Of course, in OP's report, `org-in-block-p' is the test returning early, > so pushing it earlier is faster since you don't call > `org-inside-LaTeX-fragment-p', but this is only a very specific > optimization made at the expense of other cases (and contradicts your > commit message). Am I missing something? ...no, you’re not missing anything. I looked at my patch again, and it seems completely dumb. I should not write code before finishing my morning cup of tea. I reverted in a198d81. > > I don't understand either the benefit of adding `not' calls all over the > place. I generally use de Morgan's law the other way and save a few > primcalls. > >> Do [1]-type footnotes present other performance problems today? > > The main problem of plain footnotes isn't really their performance, but > false positives'. Anytime something looks like a footnote in a buffer, > you get a performance hit. This happens much more often with plain > footnotes than with other footnote types. > > Moreover, false positives can introduce not-so-subtle problems during > export (see for example 2c66e40c). > > Note that suggesting to not use them (the default value, actually, per > `org-footnote-auto-label') doesn't help, since false positives are the > problem, not real footnotes. > > Eventually, removing them doesn't remove any feature to Org. Of course, > this is an incompatible change, and some users will need to update > documents using plain footnotes. We can provide a function for that, and > use `org-lint' to check for obsolete footnotes. The benefit is to avoid > a whole class of problems. I see. Eventually it sounds like a good idea, indeed. Maybe we should use something a bit stronger than org-lint to warn of the deprecation. What if opening a document with plain footnotes generated a warning? Thanks, -- Aaron Ecay
