Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Eshel Yaron >> Cc: 74437@debbugs.gnu.org, mail@alternateved.com >> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 16:52:49 +0100 >> >> Eli Zaretskii writes: >> >> >> From: Eshel Yaron >> >> Cc: 74437@debbugs.gnu.org, mail@alternateved.com >> >> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024 21:16:56 +0100 >> > >> >> > Also, what happens if there are other async >> >> > subprocesses running in parallel, like maybe Grep or compilation or >> >> > url-retrieve? >> >> >> >> They make progress, which seems to work as expected, at least with Grep. >> >> That is if we use the previous patch, with the one below we pass non-nil >> >> JUST-THIS-ONE argument to accept-process-output when called from a timer >> >> so other processes shouldn't see new output during this call. Either >> >> way works, AFAICT. >> > >> > The question is: what do users expect to happen in those cases? >> >> I don't know > > Neither do I. I didn't say something was wrong with either of these > implementations, I'm just saying they should be well tested by users > before we have enough basis to make the decisions whether the idea is > generally good and whether it should probably become the default in > some future version. Sounds good. So here's a full patch that keeps the current implementation as the default: