From xemacs-m  Sun Feb 16 22:50:34 1997
Received: from mailhost.lanl.gov (mailhost.lanl.gov [128.165.3.12])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA11909
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:50:34 -0600 (CST)
Received: from branagh.ta52.lanl.gov (branagh.ta52.lanl.gov [128.165.144.9]) by mailhost.lanl.gov (8.8.5/8.8.3) with SMTP id VAA01912; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 21:50:34 -0700 (MST)
Received: by branagh.ta52.lanl.gov (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id VAA11923; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 21:46:48 -0700
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 21:46:48 -0700
Message-Id: <199702170446.VAA11923@branagh.ta52.lanl.gov>
From: "John A. Turner" <turner@branagh.ta52.lanl.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: hniksic@srce.hr
Cc: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: column.el
In-Reply-To: <kig67zsp7wi.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
References: <199702152237.PAA05022@branagh.ta52.lanl.gov>
	<rjpvy1t2jb.fsf@zuse.dina.kvl.dk>
	<m2iv3sz8d5.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
	<kig67zsp7wi.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
Reply-To: turner@lanl.gov

Hrvoje Niksic writes:
 > Steven L Baur <steve@miranova.com> writes:
 > 
 > > Is there any reason we should *not* default to have line-number-mode
 > > active (or both)?
 > 
 > I think it would be wise to enable just the line-number-mode, like GNU
 > Emacs does.  Enabling column-number-mode by default will be too much
 > of a slow-down on slow tty-s.

OK, I'm getting confused.  My recollection of recent posts:

o Kyle said display-column-mode (from column.el) had a significant
  performance hit. 

o Per said column-number-mode would have no performance hit since it's
  implemented in C.

o Chuck said "unlike column-mode [column-number-mode I assume?],
  line-number-mode does come with a performance penalty".

So the main question is how significant is the line-number-mode
performance penalty?  

BTW, after trying c-m-m and l-n-m, I am in favor of Per's suggestion
of:

(defalias 'display-column-mode 'column-number-mode)

Then just remove column.el altogether?

-J

