From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: while-no-input Date: 24 Oct 2002 12:24:51 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <5xelagp218.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> 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> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035451640 14770 80.91.224.249 (24 Oct 2002 09:27:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:27:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Richard Stallman , 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 184eGt-0003q5-00 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:27:19 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 184eJ0-00007n-00 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:29:30 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 184eF6-0005WT-00; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 05:25:28 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 184eER-0004zl-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 05:24:47 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 184eEO-0004yw-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 05:24:46 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.filanet.dk ([195.215.206.179]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 184eEO-0004xO-00; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 05:24:44 -0400 Original-Received: from kfs2.cua.dk.cua.dk (kfs2.local.filanet.dk [192.168.1.182]) by mail.filanet.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 3B50C7C012; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:24:41 +0000 (GMT) Original-To: "Stefan Monnier" In-Reply-To: <200210240720.g9O7KxV11421@rum.cs.yale.edu> Original-Lines: 36 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 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:8726 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:8726 "Stefan Monnier" writes: > > "Stefan Monnier" writes: > > > > > > However, it would cleaner if instead of generating a quit signal it > > > > did a throw to a specified tag. > > > > > > The reason I didn't do that is that it didn't seem necessary > > > and that I didn't want the QUIT macro to grow, but I could introduce > > > a new function `quit' that the QUIT macro could call and which would > > > either call `Fsignal (Qquit, Qnil)' ot `Fthrow (...)'. > > > > Richard Stallman writes: > > > > > That would be ok. > > > > Stefan, > > > > What happened with this feature? > > Backburner. Because I have other things to do for now and also because, > to tell you the truth, I'm not really psyched at the idea of using `throw' > instead of (signal 'quit ): after all this quit-on-input is really > a variant of `quit' and not something of a different nature. > Proof is that it should (and does) obey inhibit-quit. IIRC, RMS said that using signal like that was very unclean and using throw would be cleaner. But I tend to agree with you that just using signal would be both simpler and more correct (obeying inhibit-quit), and I really don't see why using throw [making the implementation more trickly] can be said to be (much) cleaner than your original approach! -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk