libclang does semantic analyzing to give a very correct completion result,
based on the actual types. If starting a process in general does not cause noticeable latency (as exemplified by the php suggestions), then how would any analysis of code be any faster if it happened within the TextMate process? The actual work that needs to be done would be the same, no?
It is somehow really expensive to initialize libclang inside a program? (I do not have any experience with it) One other way the whole process could be more efficient is by keeping the entire "parse tree" (or so) of the current source code in memory, and keep it up-to-date while editing (i.e. per keystroke, update the parse tree). Is that what you have in mind? Or what else?
Again, I think you're right that for syntax highlighting, things could better happen in-process.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Help-funding-my-TextMate-2-code-sprint... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.