From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Proposal for a new mechanism for delayed stuff Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 23:43:38 +0900 Message-ID: <87d2xvpnc5.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <87pq1y46ao.fsf@gnus.org> <87ip7o7vnr.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87bodgt9wb.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1356619432 16211 80.91.229.3 (27 Dec 2012 14:43:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 14:43:52 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Achim Gratz Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 27 15:44:07 2012 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 1ToEgn-00030c-UO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:44:06 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53610 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ToEgZ-0006zP-Da for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 09:43:51 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:46262) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ToEgW-0006z9-6Q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 09:43:49 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ToEgU-0002sF-Oi for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 09:43:48 -0500 Original-Received: from mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.224]:59241) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ToEgU-0002pI-F3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 09:43:46 -0500 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DE339708F8; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 23:43:39 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E9F241A27B1; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 23:43:38 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM undefined under 21.5 (beta32) "habanero" b0d40183ac79 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 130.158.97.224 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:155936 Archived-At: Achim Gratz writes: > All languages I know that have a syntactic "break" use it to modify > local control flow. Point taken. This is really more like a throw (but I don't trust my intuition enough to suggest anything right now :-P ).. > Unless I missed some vital part of the discussion, we'd want to > terminate an async process that has used up the time budget alotted > to it. No, it's because Emacs is blocking that this timeout mechanism has been suggested. If the task were asynchronous there wouldn't be a need for a separate timeout. We would just sleep a bit and check a buffer from Lisp code, and repeat a fixed number of times or until success, whichever comes first. It could used for any potentially long-running synchronous task, whether I/O or a user-specified Lisp computation.