[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Kevin Rodgers
Subject: Re: Should `cancel-timer' use `delete' instead of `delq'?
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 14:46:42 -0600
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20060719)

Drew Adams wrote:
    > (defvar foo-timer
    >   (progn ; Cancel to prevent ~duplication.
    >     (when (boundp 'foo-timer) (cancel-timer foo-timer))
    >     (run-with-idle-timer 2 t 'foo))
    >   "Timer used to foo whenever Emacs is idle.")

    The traditional way to do something like the above is:

      (defvar foo-timer nil)
      (define-minor-mode foo "blala" :toto 1 :titi 0
        (when foo-timer
          (cancel foo-timer)
          (setq foo-timer nil))
        (when foo-mode
          (setq foo-timer (run-with-idle-timer 5 t 'foo-fun))))

OK. I'm not sure why that's better, but it does seem to move a little toward
the direction I was suggesting with a `define-idle-timer' macro.

It seems clearly better to me, because the (progn ...) form in your
defvar will only be evalated once: the first time, when foo-timer
is unbound.  Or am I missing something, in particular something that
would subsequently make foo-timer unbound?


reply via email to

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