From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: idledo.el v. 0.3 Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 14:19:36 -0500 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <87wuobakqz.fsf@computer.localdomain> <5xfzuyqbxo.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <874rbduxdf.fsf@computer.localdomain> <5xbs5ljj6s.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <87u1jcq1ex.fsf@computer.localdomain> <5xy98ozpfj.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <5x8z0mzxuo.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <5xbs5gddaw.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035832789 5113 80.91.224.249 (28 Oct 2002 19:19:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 19:19:49 +0000 (UTC) Cc: storm@cua.dk, deego@gnufans.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 186FQR-0001KK-00 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 20:19:47 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 186FUh-0006R7-00 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 20:24:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 186FR0-00061c-00; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 14:20:22 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 186FQK-0005ga-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 14:19:40 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 186FQG-0005dI-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 14:19:40 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 186FQG-0005dC-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 14:19:36 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 186FQG-00070I-00; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 14:19:36 -0500 Original-To: storm@cua.dk In-reply-to: <5xbs5gddaw.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> (storm@cua.dk) Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:8849 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:8849 > This is a useful feature, but why not use pre-command-hook directly? Because the pre-command-hook is called for all command - also when emacs hasn't been idle; that seems highly wasteful to me. timer-no-longer-idle-hook would be added complexity and a possible optimization. So the question is, how much slowdown does it avoid? Is the optimization sufficient to be worth one more feature?