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: last try (was: while-no-input) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:07:57 -0500 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <200210012119.g91LJW922045@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200210022143.g92LhXQ28321@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200210031553.g93FrwH31218@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200210041559.g94Fx9006880@rum.cs.yale.edu> <5xr8egzom4.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <200210240720.g9O7KxV11421@rum.cs.yale.edu> <5xelagp218.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <200210251344.g9PDi3W20508@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200210291945.g9TJjlU18481@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200210311803.g9VI3hM30498@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200211020407.gA2472v07516@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200211041455.gA4EtqF23410@rum.cs.yale.edu> <5xadkoriww.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <5xbs53uj41.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1036682724 27400 80.91.224.249 (7 Nov 2002 15:25:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 15:25:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: storm@cua.dk, monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu, 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 189oX2-00077a-00 for ; Thu, 07 Nov 2002 16:25:20 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 189og5-0002yM-00 for ; Thu, 07 Nov 2002 16:34:41 +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 189oUF-0005Mm-00; Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:22:27 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 189oGG-0001Ef-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:08:00 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 189oGD-0001DU-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:08:00 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 189oGD-0001DL-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:07:57 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 189oGD-0007lO-00; Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:07:57 -0500 Original-To: storm@cua.dk In-reply-to: <5xbs53uj41.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:9220 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:9220 I looked at ange-ftp and it does indeed use unwind-protect in many places, but it also has this code: (condition-case ... (quit (delete-procss ...))). I think you mean this code: (quit ;; If the user does quit out of this, ;; kill the process. That stops any transfer in progress. ;; The next operation will open a new ftp connection. (delete-process proc) (signal 'quit nil))))) This code was clearly meant to respond to C-g in particular, and I think this code should NOT respond to arrival of input even if the operation is inside of while-no-input. So I think this instance supports my feeling that this should not use the `quit' signal. Using part of the quit mechanism in the C code is a convenient way to implement while-no-input, but conceptually it is a separate feature with nothing to do with quitting.