[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Nested sit-for's

From: Kim F. Storm
Subject: Re: Nested sit-for's
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 13:45:06 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

>     IIUC, the recent addition of current-idle-time by RMS was supposed to
>     fix the sit-for in jit-lock problem in a different way.  But so far,
>     RMS' changes to jit-lock have not been installed...   What's up???
> Someone else proposed a different change to the same part of jit-lock,
> and I have not had time (while sufficiently alert) to study that,
> so I don't have any idea which solution is better.
> I sent my changes to the list yesterday; what do others think about
> them?

I haven't fully understood either of the two approaches, but Martin's
approach which completely avoids using sit-for in the timer handler
looks vastly superior to me for that reason alone!

Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]