[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: Miles Bader
Subject: Re: Should `cancel-timer' use `delete' instead of `delq'?
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 10:11:56 +0900

"Drew Adams" <address@hidden> writes:
> To repeat my question: Is it a good idea to either document the
> "traditional" `define-minor-mode' approach or define a new macro for this,
> or should we just let people discover this on their own?

I think the macro is inappropriate; the problem generally doesn't occur
in typical "define" contexts (for instance your defvar "protection" will
never get executed, because of the way defvar works).

If this is actually a problem in practice, just documenting it seems
good enough.

Is this potential problem really any more widespread than millions of
other very similar bugs though?  This is exactly the same as many other
sorts of resource allocation/deallocation; we don't explicitly warn
people about each of them because we assume than programmers know how to
handle this sort of thing in general.


"Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture
and contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is wrong, insecure,
and demoralizing.  On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the
future of the world depends." -Oscar Wilde, "The Soul of Man Under Socialism"

reply via email to

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