[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: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 23:33:19 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

martin rudalics <address@hidden> writes:

>> If we simply document that "timers (and process filters) should avoid
>> using sit-for", it should be clear to the reader that rare exceptions
>> may exist (especially if we add a comment to jit-lock-stealth-fontify
>> stating this).  After the release, we can probably rework
>> jit-lock-stealth-fontify to avoid using sit-for, but I don't think the
>> current situation is bad enough to block the release.
> If you accept a pre-command-hook the attached patch would be a first
> step in that direction.

Is the pre-command-hook installed permanently, or only when jit-lock is

IMHO, using a permanently installed pre-command-hook is not acceptable, but
it may be ok if only used temporarily...

But why is this needed at all?

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

reply via email to

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