From xemacs-m  Sat Jun 28 06:40:20 1997
Received: from jagor.srce.hr (hniksic@jagor.srce.hr [161.53.2.130])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA13457
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 06:40:19 -0500 (CDT)
Received: (from hniksic@localhost)
          by jagor.srce.hr (8.8.5/8.8.4)
	  id NAA16949; Sat, 28 Jun 1997 13:40:20 +0200 (MET DST)
To: XEmacs Developers <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] `log-message-ignore-regexps': Message labeling
References: <kigiuz3wmww.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> 	<QQcvjv09752.199706250049@crystal.WonderWorks.COM> 	<kigbu4uofrp.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> 	<QQcvmj23648.199706251719@crystal.WonderWorks.COM> 	<kigk9ji8tmh.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> <QQcvus16541.199706272335@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
X-Attribution: Hrv
X-Face: Mie8:rOV<\c/~z{s.X4A{!?vY7{drJ([U]0O=W/<W*SMo/Mv:58:*_y~ki>xDi&N7XG
        KV^$k0m3Oe/)'e%3=$PCR&3ITUXH,cK>]bci&<qQ>Ff%x_>1`T(+M2Gg/fgndU%k*ft
        [(7._6e0n-V%|%'[c|q:;}td$#INd+;?!-V=c8Pqf}3J
From: Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>
Date: 28 Jun 1997 13:40:17 +0200
Message-ID: <kig3eq3t0pq.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
Lines: 47

Kyle Jones <kyle_jones@wonderworks.com> writes:

>  > > My suggestion is not meant to address a big problem, message
>  > > classification.  Rather it was meant to address a little
>  > > problem, applications being slowing down by regexp matching.
>  > 
>  > But the question in #1 still stands: how many messages do you propose
>  > to log?
> 
> All of them.

This is a joke, right?  Do you know how many messages you can get
while running XEmacs for a few days?  Note that every single
fontification of a file prints about ten messages.  Entering a
newsgroup in Gnus prints two or three.  If we were to log all of the
messages, soon our *Messages* buffer would become the largest XEmacs
buffer.

>  > > But if we're going to move to some message labelling system,
>  > > we need to give it more thought than we've currently given
>  > > it.
>  > 
>  > Why?  I cannot find a flaw in the way labeling is currently
>  > implemented (Ben's implementation, I suppose).  Have I missed
>  > something crucial on the way?
> 
> No, I'm just paranoid and off my medication again.

Cool.

The same question goes to other, too (Steve?) -- if there are some
fundamental problems in the implementation of message logging, I'd
like to hear it -- I can look at that code and try to fix it, if
necessary.

A change I would like to make: I think we need a `labeled-message' (or
`lmessage') function, which takes the same type of argument as
message, but allows for a label:

(lmessage 'no-log "This is just a %s example"
          (if (natnump (random)) "fine" "stupid"))

-- 
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
Unspeakable horrors from outer space paralyze the living and
resurrect the dead!

