Re: Should `cancel-timer' use `delete' instead of `delq'?

[Stefan Monnier]

> It's almost certainly intentional that it uses delq.  A timer is a
> unique entity.

> If application code can create multiple timers and doesn't save all the
> corresponding cookies for deletion, it's obviously a bug in that
> application code.

While I somewhat agree with Miles, I also agree with Drew that it can lead
to undesirable situations where it's very difficult to return to a "normal"
session, other than by restarting Emacs.

I've been tempted to change timer-idle-list and timer-list so that they use
weak-pointers.  I.e. if you don't hold on to your timer by storing it in
a global var or somesuch, then it'll get cancelled/destroyed at the next GC.
I think this could work if we only do it for timers that use `repeat'.


        Stefan