Re: Nested sit-for's

On 10/18/07, Richard Stallman <rmsgnu.org> wrote:

> I think it is convenient for it to return nil to
indicate
> "not idle", and if you wish it were (0 0 0),
it is easy to
> write (or ... '(0 0 0)).

AFAICS, current-idle-time is used exactly once in the Emacs
sources
(in jit-lock.el), so I'm not entirely sure what convenience
are you
talking about; to my eyes it just adds a tiny bit of
unneeded
complexity to the function's interface...

...But anyway, if you are certain that is the right
interface, we
should at least document it. The fact that the function
could return
nil is mentioned neither in the docstring nor the "Idle
Timers" node
of the Elisp reference.

             Juanma


_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-develgnu.org
htt
p://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

    AFAICS, current-idle-time is used exactly once in the
Emacs sources
    (in jit-lock.el), so I'm not entirely sure what
convenience are you
    talking about; to my eyes it just adds a tiny bit of
unneeded
    complexity to the function's interface...

I think it is good to make it easy to test whether Emacs is
idle,
given that the function already exists and does this.  So I
will document
the current behavior when Emacs is not idle.

As far as I can see, jit-lock-stealth-fontify is only
called when Emacs is idle, so it does not need to be
changed.


_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-develgnu.org
htt
p://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel