From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stefan Monnier" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: while-no-input Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:45:47 -0500 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <200210291945.g9TJjlU18481@rum.cs.yale.edu> References: <200210012119.g91LJW922045@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200210022143.g92LhXQ28321@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200210031553.g93FrwH31218@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200210041559.g94Fx9006880@rum.cs.yale.edu> <5xr8egzom4.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <200210240720.g9O7KxV11421@rum.cs.yale.edu> <5xelagp218.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <200210251344.g9PDi3W20508@rum.cs.yale.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035920888 17104 80.91.224.249 (29 Oct 2002 19:48:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 19:48:08 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu, storm@cua.dk, emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 186cLP-0004Rh-00 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 20:48:07 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 186cQ9-0005BX-00 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 20:53:02 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 186cJo-0005i1-00; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:46:28 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 186cJE-0004xw-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:45:52 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 186cJA-0004w3-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:45:50 -0500 Original-Received: from rum.cs.yale.edu ([128.36.229.169]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 186cJ9-0004tK-00; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:45:47 -0500 Original-Received: (from monnier@localhost) by rum.cs.yale.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g9TJjlU18481; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:45:47 -0500 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 Original-To: Richard Stallman Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:8928 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:8928 Kim said: > IIRC, RMS said that using signal like that was very unclean and > using throw would be cleaner. rms@gnu.org said: > That is the first thing I said. Afterwards I agreed to a modified > version of the change which avoids the ugliness at the Lisp level. I then said: > I don't understand what you're referring to. > Are you saying that you did agree to a version that was not using `throw' ? To which you now reply: > I agreed to the version using `throw'. That is what I was referring to. Could you explain what is unclean about using `signal' ? Currently, the only non-local exit that ever happens "asynchronously" is the quit signal and it's also the only thing that obeys the inhibit-quit flag. The feature I'd like to introduce is also an asynchonous non-local exit and should also obey the inhibit-quit flag, so it seems eminently natural to use a quit signal as well. The fact that the implementation is easier this way is just reflects the fact that it is the "right" approach. Stefan