From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Ignore pending_signals when checking for quits. Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 21:40:43 +0200 Message-ID: <834l9bmnyc.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20190102212218.74902-1-phst@google.com> <83sgy93kkd.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="269318"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: phst@google.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Philipp Stephani Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 10 20:44:30 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gsv1e-0017pE-MD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 10 Feb 2019 20:44:26 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34726 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gsv1d-0006tF-Jt for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 10 Feb 2019 14:44:25 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:37076) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gsv1I-0006UG-Sp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 10 Feb 2019 14:44:05 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:44757) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gsuyT-0000o3-Iw; Sun, 10 Feb 2019 14:41:09 -0500 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4580 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1gsuyS-0002wY-MG; Sun, 10 Feb 2019 14:41:09 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Philipp Stephani on Sun, 10 Feb 2019 19:49:39 +0100) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:233202 Archived-At: > From: Philipp Stephani > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 19:49:39 +0100 > Cc: Emacs developers , Philipp Stephani > > > Bother. I see your point regarding the return value when just > > pending_signals is set, but disregarding pending_signals doesn't sound > > TRT to me, either. It means various Emacs features based on input > > detection won't work while the module code runs, even if the module > > tries to be nice and does call module_should_quit. For example, > > while-no-input and atimers won't work, and Emacs will generally be > > much less responsive to user input. > > > > So maybe we should indeed return true only if QUITP says so, but we > > should also call process_pending_signals from module_should_quit, when > > pending_signals is non-zero? > > Wouldn't that mean that Emacs could do something (e.g. process > events)? That wouldn't match the naming and intention of should_quit: > By its name, it should only query information and not change any > state. If the only problem is the name, we could change the name. Or we could introduce a new function. But let's first agree about the substance: a well-behaving module should from time to time call process_pending_signals. Agreed?