> From: Philipp Stephani <p.stephani2@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 19:09:52 +0000
> Cc: 24372@debbugs.gnu.org
>
>  > How about a variant of this below? It uses a fixed limitation from
>  > below on the delay, but only for the first blink. (The value 0.2 was
>  > found by experimentation, not sure if we need to add yet another
>  > defcustom for that.)
>  >
>  > I don't think we should introduce magic numbers or further customization options.
>
>  It solves the problem, doesn't it? I don't mind very much if it were
>  a defcustom, I just think no one would want to change it.
>
> OK, then it would be great to document the new behavior in the documentation of `blink-cursor-delay' and also
> clarify what "starting to blink" means.

Done.

>  > > I've attached another patch with the change I have in mind.
>  >
>  > This has a disadvantage of creating a new timer object each time,
>  > which I think we'd like to avoid: too much consing. (Also, don't you
>  > need to set the timer variable to nil when the timer is disabled?)
>  >
>  > I don't understand - the patch doesn't create any additional timers, it only changes the initial delay of
>  the
>  > idle-timer.
>
>  Each time blink-cursor--start-timer or blink-cursor--start-idle-timer
>  is called, they create a new timer, right? And your patch makes us
>  call these functions each time blinking is started or ended, right?
>
> No, the other patch is that it restarts the timers when the customization options are set. Otherwise the options
> only become effective after a focus-out/focus-in event or something similar that restarts the cursor.
>
>  > My patch is identical, except is uses blink-cursor-interval as lower bound.
>
>  Of course. That's why I said it's a minor variant.
>
>  There's another difference, though: in my patch we only limit the
>  first argument to run-with-timer/run-with-idle-timer, not the second.
>  So only the first blink cycle is affected.
>
> Doesn't that mean that the adjusted delay is applied only after the first command, but not after subsequent
> commands?

No, not AFAIK.  The idle time starts anew after each command.

Is there anything left to do about this, or can we close this bug?