[TxMt] Re: The overhead of 'Pipe text through' ...

[Torsten Grust]

Jacob Rus and Thomas Aylott wrote (with possible deletions):
> I'm not exactly sure what Allan's plans are, but as far as I know, all of the
architecture for that part of the app (as well as just about everything else) is
being rewritten for TM 2.0, so your best bet is probably to wait for that, and
then give feedback.  I know that Allan wants to do some unification of the
regular html preview and the commands' html view, etc.
> 
> -Jacob


> I've been lobbying for an 'update on refresh' option in html output commands
for a LONG time.
> I have a little command that I use in the pipe text through thing.
> It looks at the scope and guesstimates what you want to be previewing.
> [...]
> thomas Aylott — design42 — subtleGradient — CrazyEgg

Dear Jacob and Thomas, many thanks for your replies.  

Knowing that all keystrokes are buffered is good.  Still, the situation is not
quite satisfactory in my eyes since you can actually see at which rates TextMate
*could* update and publish the editor window contents if the forking overhead
would go away.

(Please correct me if I am mistaken here, but even if I write a TextMate
command, there will still be the overhead to fork() the script interpreter, 
be it perl or ruby or whatnot.  That's what I try to get around here.)

Thanks again and best wishes,
   --Torsten