From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Using glib's g_file_monitor_file and g_file_monitor_directory Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 18:33:03 +0300 Message-ID: <83d2sbp1ao.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87zjxxn6th.fsf@gmx.de> <87hajqpjn1.fsf@gmx.de> <8738t7pewc.fsf@gmx.de> <51A4C2E9.8040000@cs.ucla.edu> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1369758779 18958 80.91.229.3 (28 May 2013 16:32:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 16:32:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: michael.albinus@gmx.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 28 18:32:58 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UhMpV-0003RT-Ez for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 18:32:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35399 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UhLv0-0004p0-SY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 11:34:34 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:43190) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UhLtW-00034G-9n for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 11:33:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UhLtO-0000Qp-60 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 11:33:02 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:48882) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UhLtN-0000QW-U1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 11:32:54 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MNI00000LU63900@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 18:32:51 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MNI00MAYLURFIJ0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Tue, 28 May 2013 18:32:51 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <51A4C2E9.8040000@cs.ucla.edu> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.166 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:159861 Archived-At: > Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 07:44:57 -0700 > From: Paul Eggert > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > Should the issues of file-change and process-change notifications > be combined, or kept separate? What are the advantages of combining them? The uses and the use-cases are quite different, it seems.