storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) writes:

> michael.cadilhac@lrde.org (Michaël Cadilhac) writes:
>
>> I still think this line should be slightly changed to say something
>> about zero (and negative) values of SECONDS.
>
> To me it seems quite obvious that "seconds <= 0" implies "waited the
> full time".

It does to me too, and that's the problem.

The docstring says the following :

> Value is t if waited the full time with no input arriving, and nil
> otherwise.

I said earlier:

> Maybe this  part of  the docstring should  be slightly changed  to say
> that a negative or null value of SECONDS is not considered to be fully
> waited if an input was pending before the call to sit-for.

I think the  current docstring is ambiguous on  this point: if seconds
is  <=  0,  one could  think  that  _whatever  the input_  SECONDS  is
considered to be fully waited, whilst it's not the case.

-- 
 |      Michaël `Micha' Cadilhac   |  Un certain Blaise Pascal              |
 |         Epita/LRDE Promo 2007   |    etc... etc...                       |
 |  http://michael.cadilhac.name   |  -- Prévert (Les paris stupides)       |
 `--  -   JID: micha@amessage.be --'                                   -  --'