GNU bug report logs - #61028
30.0.50; [PATCH] [FEATURE] Balanced fill mode

Previous Next

Full log

Message #11 received at 61028 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andrew Kensler <andrew <at> eastfarthing.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 61028 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#61028: 30.0.50; [PATCH] [FEATURE] Balanced fill mode
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2023 00:27:10 -0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

A revised patch is attached.  Replies follow inline.

On 1/23/23 7:34 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Thanks, I think this is a welcome feature.  Please see a few comments
> below.  I will send you the form for copyright assignment off-list.
Signed and sent.
> I find this subsection too detailed and lengthy.  I'm not sure we want
> to describe all the customizable options that users can customize,
> just the main ones.  Assuming the default values are chosen well,
> chances are that most users will not need to customize too many of
> them, and therefore the manual doesn't have to describe them; we just
> need to mention that several more options are available, and perhaps
> have a special group for them for easier discoverability.  WDYT?

I have significantly trimmed this subsection of the manual.

I agree about the special group.  The options related to balanced fill 
mode have now been collected in their own 'balanced-fill customization 
group, which is a child of the main 'fill group. (Note that the other 
existing options in fill.el are now explicitly placed in the 'fill group 
rather than relying on implicit ordering relative to the last group 
definition.)  This subsection of the manual now tells how to customize 
the 'balanced-fill group, rather than listing all of the options 
individually.

I have also renamed several of the options to better imply their 
relation; the ones that directly contribute (or are an exponent on a 
value that contributes) to the total score being optimized now all end 
in -penalty, for example.

> My other concern about the documentation is that it seems to describe
> the feature in a way that is too technical and uses terminology from
> the field of optimizations.  I'm afraid that users without background
> in optimizations will have difficulty understanding some of the
> options.  Can you try describing this in a less formal manner, so as
> to make it easier to understand?

I have tried to move the focus of the documentation for this feature 
away from the technical details of the implementation and more towards a 
description of the effects.

> This example is too long.  I suggest to find a shorter one.  I think
> an example with 3 lines should be enough to explain the feature.

I have changed the manual subsection to use a much shorter example.  It 
is a bit longer than 3 lines, but that is because it uses a fill-width 
of 20.  However, this gave me room to put the examples with and without 
this feature side-by-side.

> This should mention at least a few main options that control the
> feature.

In the NEWS announcement, I have added a reference to the new 
customization group.

> Likewise here: this doc string is too abstract and thus hard to grok.
> Talking about minimization of a cost function that penalizes something
> only helps if one has some background in that domain.  I'd instead try
> to say something like "fills the entire paragraph avoiding too short
> lines" or something similar.

I have updated the doc string on the minor mode here, as well as the 
other doc strings to remove the mentions of minimizing a cost function.  
In this case, I went with "When enabled, filling will try to optimally 
choose a set of line breaks to make a paragraph look tidier by 
considering the entire paragraph at a time.  This may place line breaks 
sooner than necessary if it improves later lines."

> The first line of a doc string should be a single complete sentence
> (here and elsewhere in the patch).  This is important because the
> various "apropos" commands show only the first line of the doc string.
Good point!  This might be worth a reminder under the "Documenting your 
changes" section of the CONTRIBUTE guide where it mentions doc-strings.
> These options are probably related, in that changing one needs a
> suitable change in others to make sense.  If this is indeed so, please
> mention the relations in the doc strings.  You say "Additional", but
> that is meaningless when each doc string is read separately
> (additional to what?)

That's a fair point.  Each of the options now that contributes to the 
scoring now ends in -penalty and is a member of the 'balanced-fill 
customization group.  I have also updated the doc strings to mention 
that these values are about the prioritization of some aspect of the 
appearance of the paragraph relative to the other penalties.  Hopefully 
that is more clear now.  I have removed the "Additional" language.

> If this is an internal function, please use our convention of naming
> it with double dash, as in balanced-fill--break-lines.  If this is
> supposed to be a public function, it should have a doc string.

I have renamed it to use the double dash.  I had originally been trying 
to match it to the existing code in fill.el, which doesn't seem use that 
convention.  But I also realize that that code may predate that 
convention and you wouldn't have wanted to rename it and risk breaking 
any user code relying on it.  No need for new code to be bound by that, 
though.

> Last, but not least: what about performance?  Is this performant
> enough to apply to large enough paragraphs, including via
> auto-fill-mode?  Can you provide some measurements?

That's a fair question.  That is why I had added the 
balanced-fill-word-limit option to restrict this to small to medium 
paragraphs.  But to test the performance, I have written a small 
benchmark (see attached) that creates temporary buffers with 
successively larger copies of the common "Lorem ipsum" paragraph, all on 
on line, and measures the time to fill it.  Here are timings that I got 
from it on my 10-year old machine at a few key sizes, with and without 
nativecomp:

Without nativecomp:
  For 69 words:
    greedy fill   -- 0.000216s
    balanced fill -- 0.001203s
  For 483 words:
    greedy fill   -- 0.001201s
    balanced fill -- 0.023777s
  For 2001 words:
    greedy fill   -- 0.005144s
    balanced fill -- 0.341215s
With nativecomp:
  For 69 words:
    greedy fill   -- 0.000190s
    balanced fill -- 0.000991s
  For 483 words:
    greedy fill   -- 0.001086s
    balanced fill -- 0.021680s
  For 2001 words:
    greedy fill   -- 0.004645s
    balanced fill -- 0.316352s

Note that for this benchmark, I had raised the balanced-fill-word-limit 
option so that it would test the new balanced fill algorithm, even at 
larger sizes.  With its current default of the 500 word limit, the 
timings for the 2001 words tests when balanced fill mode was enabled 
were around ~0.5ms since it would fall back to the greedy fill 
algorithm.  Thus the maximum time with this minor mode enabled and the 
default word limit would be about ~2.5ms on this machine for a 500 word 
paragraph.

Hopefully this new revision addresses your major critiques from before.  
I'm happy to refine it further if you still have reservations or spot 
anything else.

[0001-Add-new-minor-balanced-fill-mode-to-filling.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[benchmark-fill.el (text/x-emacs-lisp, attachment)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.