Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden
> schrieb am Sa., 1. Okt. 2016 um 10:25 Uhr:
> From: Philipp Stephani <address@hidden>
> Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 19:09:52 +0000
> Cc: address@hidden
> > How about a variant of this below? It uses a fixed limitation from
> > below on the delay, but only for the first blink. (The value 0.2 was
> > found by experimentation, not sure if we need to add yet another
> > defcustom for that.)
> > I don't think we should introduce magic numbers or further customization options.
> It solves the problem, doesn't it? I don't mind very much if it were
> a defcustom, I just think no one would want to change it.
> OK, then it would be great to document the new behavior in the documentation of `blink-cursor-delay' and also
> clarify what "starting to blink" means.
> > > I've attached another patch with the change I have in mind.
> > This has a disadvantage of creating a new timer object each time,
> > which I think we'd like to avoid: too much consing. (Also, don't you
> > need to set the timer variable to nil when the timer is disabled?)
> > I don't understand - the patch doesn't create any additional timers, it only changes the initial delay of
> > idle-timer.
> Each time blink-cursor--start-timer or blink-cursor--start-idle-timer
> is called, they create a new timer, right? And your patch makes us
> call these functions each time blinking is started or ended, right?
> No, the other patch is that it restarts the timers when the customization options are set. Otherwise the options
> only become effective after a focus-out/focus-in event or something similar that restarts the cursor.
> > My patch is identical, except is uses blink-cursor-interval as lower bound.
> Of course. That's why I said it's a minor variant.
> There's another difference, though: in my patch we only limit the
> first argument to run-with-timer/run-with-idle-timer, not the second.
> So only the first blink cycle is affected.
> Doesn't that mean that the adjusted delay is applied only after the first command, but not after subsequent
No, not AFAIK. The idle time starts anew after each command.
Indeed, the repeat argument of run-with-idle-timer is only checked for nil-ness and otherwise ignored. I'd suggest to pass something like :repeat or t to that argument so that readers are less confused.
Is there anything left to do about this, or can we close this bug?
The second patch (restarting the timers after the customization options changed) is still open, what about that one?