Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> schrieb am So., 11. Sep. 2016 um 18:23 Uhr:

> > From: Philipp Stephani <p.stephani2@gmail.com>
> > Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2016 09:15:49 +0000
> > Cc: 24372@debbugs.gnu.org
> >
> >  > OK, I guess one issue is that setting blink-cursor-delay doesn't
> restart blink-cursor-idle-timer.
> >  (Similarly,
> >  > changing blink-cursor-interval doesn't restart blink-cursor-timer.)
> While obviously we can't fix that
> >  when using
> >  > setq, I'd suggest adding custom setters to the variables nevertheless.
> >
> > I've attached a patch for this. It shouldn't be controversial because it
> only reduces the possibility for surprises,
> > but doesn't change any behavior.
>
> Using the maximum of blink-cursor-delay and blink-cursor-interval
> effectively removes the user's ability of controlling the delay before
> the cursor starts blinking when Emacs becomes idle, doesn't it?


Yes. I tried to figure out what the intention of blink-cursor-delay was,
but couldn't find anything (the commit where it was introduced doesn't
provide any motivation). I don't think that blink-cursor-delay <
blink-cursor-interval ever makes sense. The other way round (delay >
interval) is useful if you want to keep the cursor visible for a bit longer
after a command.


>   If
> so, I don't think this could qualify as not changing any behavior.
>

My comment is about the other patch, the one that fixes the customization
options.


> Plus, if the user sets the interval to a very small value, we have the
> same problem again.
>

True, but so far that hasn't happened. Also it seems less surprising: if
you increase the frequency, the cursor blinks faster, as expected.


>
> 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. (TBH, I already doubt the usefulness of blink-cursor-delay, but
that's already there.)


>
> > It does introduce the adverse side effect that now the first blink takes
> one second (the sum of
> > cursor-blink-delay and cursor-blink-interval).
>
> Right.
>
> > 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.


>
> I'd prefer something along the lines of the first idea, the patch
> below or some variant of it.  It is simpler.
>
> diff --git a/lisp/frame.el b/lisp/frame.el
> index cfd40bf..4540172 100644
> --- a/lisp/frame.el
> +++ b/lisp/frame.el
> @@ -2114,7 +2114,7 @@ blink-cursor-check
>              (not blink-cursor-idle-timer))
>      (remove-hook 'post-command-hook 'blink-cursor-check)
>      (setq blink-cursor-idle-timer
> -          (run-with-idle-timer blink-cursor-delay
> +          (run-with-idle-timer (max 0.2 blink-cursor-delay)
>                                 blink-cursor-delay
>                                 'blink-cursor-start))))
>
> @@ -2148,7 +2148,7 @@ blink-cursor-mode
>      (add-hook 'focus-in-hook #'blink-cursor-check)
>      (add-hook 'focus-out-hook #'blink-cursor-suspend)
>      (setq blink-cursor-idle-timer
> -          (run-with-idle-timer blink-cursor-delay
> +          (run-with-idle-timer (max 0.2 blink-cursor-delay)
>                                 blink-cursor-delay
>                                 #'blink-cursor-start))))
>
>
My patch is identical, except is uses blink-cursor-interval as lower bound.