Re: Severe lossage from unread-command-events

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
>> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:56:42 +0200
>> 
>> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>> 
>> > Looks like I can (and must) leave off the (cons t ...) for my use
>> > case.  I haven't seen any bad effects from doing so: events are looked
>> > up in keymaps and recorded just fine so far.  I don't know what the
>> > implications of the t thing are.  But other than that, things do look
>> > good so far.
>> 
>> Any chance for this patch going in anytime soon?  Anything I should be
>> doing here?
>
> I was waiting for you to tell whether it solves all the problems you
> know about with pushing events onto unread-command-events.  If you are
> satisfied by what you see after applying the patch, I will push.

So far the results looked good.  I suspect that it does nothing about
the "escaping e" problem of Artur.  And I suspect that the "(cons t"
feature will (still?) not work reliably.  However, neither of those
problems would appear to be caused by your patch, so there seems little
point in delaying that patch.

-- 
David Kastrup