From owner-freebsd-ports Wed Dec 18 05:08:00 1996 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id FAA05534 for ports-outgoing; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 05:08:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from elmer.muc.ditec.de (firewall-user@[194.120.126.30]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id FAA05499; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 05:07:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by elmer.muc.ditec.de; id PAA00219; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 15:16:50 +0100 (MET) Received: from tartufo.muc.ditec.de(134.98.18.2) by elmer.muc.ditec.de via smap (3.2) id xma000203; Wed, 18 Dec 96 15:16:24 +0100 Received: by tartufo.muc.ditec.de (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.16.1 #16.39) id ; Tue, 17 Dec 96 15:44 MEZ Message-Id: Date: Wed, 18 Dec 96 14:09 MEZ From: me@muc.ditec.de (Michael Elbel) To: ports@freebsd.org Cc: jkh@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports INDEX browser update Newsgroups: lists.freebsd.ports References: <2773.849703433@time.cdrom.com> <199612050041.LAA18501@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Reply-To: me@muc.ditec.de X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #1 (NOV) Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In lists.freebsd.ports you write: >The reason I asked about the event granularity was just from the >POV of performance; if we're handling events character-by-character >we're going to have to bind rather more tightly to the text widget. You feed it strings. The one-character version is just a special case of that. It even wraps around by it self. The output speed is about as fast as xterm's, including scrolling. It doesn't jump-scroll as well as xterm, but that's a moot point these days where graphics cards usually start out at beyond 100.000 XStones. After all, we *had* a replacement for xterm in mind. Back then, output speed was cruical. I haven't looked at TK's text widget lately but I remember Emu (and xterm) being way faster for larger amounts of text. Michael (me) Elbel -- Michael Elbel, DITEC, Muenchen, Germany - me@muc.ditec.de Fermentation fault (coors dumped)