[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: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Should `cancel-timer' use `delete' instead of `delq'? |
Date: |
Wed, 06 Sep 2006 08:38:02 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
"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).
>
> I was able to be bitten by it, using C-M-x on the defvar. And the
> general point applies to setq as well.
I don't think we need to worry about what damage a user might to
manually. I really don't see this as a valid reason to stop multiple
timers from working.
> How many of them will be bit by this? Who knows? Why not help them
> avoid it?
We can't avoid people shooting themselves in the foot. We might add
some command for killing timers in an emergency if really necessary.
> 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.
>
> You assume too much, I think.
>
> If I defvar or setq toto to (cons 1 2)), and I make no other
> assignments or bindings to that cons cell, and then I setq toto to
> (cons 3 4), should I assume that the first cons cell is still around
> causing mischief? Maybe, for a while.
A cons is not an active object. You'll not notice the difference of
it being around or not if it is not referenced. An active timer _is_
referenced.
> I think that one natural, if erroneous, expectation is that the
> orphan timer will naturally go by the wayside at some point, and
> need not be thought much about.
I don't see any such expectation as natural.
> There are other, just as natural, expectations that would be more
> correct, but that expectation is a possible and reasonable one:
> don't worry about that zombie timer;
An active timer is not a zombie. Really.
> it's history; it may be toast already.
A timer stopping to work of his own volition is a bug.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- Re: Should `cancel-timer' use `delete' instead of `delq'?, (continued)
- Re: Should `cancel-timer' use `delete' instead of `delq'?, Kevin Rodgers, 2006/09/05
- RE: Should `cancel-timer' use `delete' instead of `delq'?, Drew Adams, 2006/09/05
- Re: Should `cancel-timer' use `delete' instead of `delq'?, Miles Bader, 2006/09/05
- RE: Should `cancel-timer' use `delete' instead of `delq'?, Drew Adams, 2006/09/05
- Re: Should `cancel-timer' use `delete' instead of `delq'?, Miles Bader, 2006/09/05
- RE: Should `cancel-timer' use `delete' instead of `delq'?, Drew Adams, 2006/09/06
- Re: Should `cancel-timer' use `delete' instead of `delq'?, Miles Bader, 2006/09/06
- Re: Should `cancel-timer' use `delete' instead of `delq'?, David Kastrup, 2006/09/06
- Re: Should `cancel-timer' use `delete' instead of `delq'?, Stefan Monnier, 2006/09/06
- RE: Should `cancel-timer' use `delete' instead of `delq'?, Drew Adams, 2006/09/06
- Re: Should `cancel-timer' use `delete' instead of `delq'?,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: Should `cancel-timer' use `delete' instead of `delq'?, David Kastrup, 2006/09/05
- Re: Should `cancel-timer' use `delete' instead of `delq'?, Stefan Monnier, 2006/09/05
- Re: Should `cancel-timer' use `delete' instead of `delq'?, Richard Stallman, 2006/09/06
Re: Should `cancel-timer' use `delete' instead of `delq'?, Stuart D. Herring, 2006/09/05
Re: Should `cancel-timer' use `delete' instead of `delq'?, Richard Stallman, 2006/09/06