[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: jit-lock timer etc.
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: jit-lock timer etc. |
Date: |
Fri, 25 Aug 2006 16:23:39 -0400 |
> However, returning the value in floating point might be a good method.
That would be much better and cleaner, IMO.
And we can leave time-to-seconds where it is!
> But if we do that, we should call it float-idle-time.
Why?
For consistency with float-time.
I see Yidong has already fixed the bug, by extending
run-with-idle-time to handle this type of value. But it would still
be useful to add float-idle-time. Would you like to do that?
- Re: jit-lock timer etc., (continued)
- Re: jit-lock timer etc., Richard Stallman, 2006/08/22
- Re: jit-lock timer etc., martin rudalics, 2006/08/23
- Re: jit-lock timer etc., Kim F. Storm, 2006/08/23
- Re: jit-lock timer etc., Richard Stallman, 2006/08/24
- Re: jit-lock timer etc., Kim F. Storm, 2006/08/24
- Re: jit-lock timer etc., Kim F. Storm, 2006/08/24
- Re: jit-lock timer etc., Kim F. Storm, 2006/08/24
- Re: jit-lock timer etc., Chong Yidong, 2006/08/24
- Re: jit-lock timer etc., Richard Stallman, 2006/08/25
- Re: jit-lock timer etc., Kim F. Storm, 2006/08/25
- Re: jit-lock timer etc.,
Richard Stallman <=
- Re: jit-lock timer etc., Chong Yidong, 2006/08/25
- Re: jit-lock timer etc., Richard Stallman, 2006/08/26
- Re: jit-lock timer etc., Kim F. Storm, 2006/08/24
- Re: jit-lock timer etc., martin rudalics, 2006/08/24
- Re: jit-lock timer etc., Kim F. Storm, 2006/08/24
- Re: jit-lock timer etc., Kim F. Storm, 2006/08/24
- Re: jit-lock timer etc., Kim F. Storm, 2006/08/24
- Re: jit-lock timer etc., Kim F. Storm, 2006/08/24
- Re: jit-lock timer etc., martin rudalics, 2006/08/24
- Re: jit-lock timer etc., Kim F. Storm, 2006/08/24