From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: quimby.gnus.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: sit-for considered harmful in kbd-macros Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 22:19:50 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <200202100519.g1A5JoA06369@aztec.santafe.edu> References: <200202062241.g16MfDO30778@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200202081357.g18Dv3P05370@aztec.santafe.edu> <200202081458.g18EwGR10513@rum.cs.yale.edu> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: quimby2.netfonds.no X-Trace: quimby2.netfonds.no 1013319093 19219 195.204.10.66 (10 Feb 2002 05:31:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@quimby2.netfonds.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Feb 2002 05:31:33 GMT Cc: monnier+gnu/emacs@RUM.cs.yale.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby2.netfonds.no with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16ZmaE-0004zs-00 for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 06:31:26 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16ZmQu-0000qI-00; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 00:21:48 -0500 Original-Received: from pele.santafe.edu ([192.12.12.119]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16ZmP1-0000hS-00; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 00:19:51 -0500 Original-Received: from aztec.santafe.edu (aztec [192.12.12.49]) by pele.santafe.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA26612; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 22:19:50 -0700 (MST) Original-Received: (from rms@localhost) by aztec.santafe.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) id g1A5JoA06369; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 22:19:50 -0700 (MST) X-Authentication-Warning: aztec.santafe.edu: rms set sender to rms@aztec using -f Original-To: monnier+gnu/emacs@RUM.cs.yale.edu In-reply-to: <200202081458.g18EwGR10513@rum.cs.yale.edu> (monnier+gnu/emacs@RUM.cs.yale.edu) Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.5 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: quimby.gnus.org gmane.emacs.devel:943 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:943 I don't understand. My patch doesn't prevent redisplay (which will happen inside `detect_input_pending_run_timers'). In that case, is it redundant for sit_for to call redisplay_preserve_echo_area? If initial_display is nonzero and display is too, does it redisplay twice? So is there any real objection to my suggested patch: If the purpose is to prevent waiting, I tend to think that is right. Most of the time, when commands wait, it is to make a message easier to see. Inside a macro I think it is better not to do that. _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel