Re: Revamping sit-for

[David Kastrup]

Chong Yidong <address@hidden> writes:

>> The doc string says, to me, that an existing call of (sit-for 3 200), which
>> previously simply waited 3.2 sec, with no inhibition of display, will now be
>> interpreted as a wait of 3.0 sec, with inhibition of display. That's a
>> serious change in behavior.
>
>   if (NILP (nodisp) && !NUMBERP (milliseconds))
>     { /* New style.  */
>       nodisp = milliseconds;
>       milliseconds = Qnil;
>     }
>
> However, since the old form has been obsolete for a long time, and can
> cause confusion (as demonstrated), it might be good to simply drop it.

This is not a time for such a step.  We should do this after some
release, if at all.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum