From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: "Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: [michael.cadilhac-@t-lrde.epita.fr: sit-for
	(detect_input_pending ?) and postfix input methods.]
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:15:35 -0400
Message-ID: <E1EOp4Z-0001EB-Gj@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <E1EMIa9-0005hI-PX@fencepost.gnu.org> <E1EN3ff-0002eS-00@etlken>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1128917970 21922 80.91.229.2 (10 Oct 2005 04:19:30 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 04:19:30 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: michael.cadilhac-@t-lrde.epita.fr, emacs-devel@gnu.org
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 10 06:19:10 2005
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165])
	by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1EOp7C-0008A7-W2
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 06:18:19 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1EOp7C-0007i7-7M
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:18:18 -0400
Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1EOp4a-0006nw-TX
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:15:37 -0400
Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1EOp4a-0006nb-BV
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:15:36 -0400
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EOp4a-0006nW-69
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:15:36 -0400
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1EOp4a-00044f-6K
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:15:36 -0400
Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34)
	id 1EOp4Z-0001EB-Gj; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:15:35 -0400
Original-To: Kenichi Handa <handa@m17n.org>
In-reply-to: <E1EN3ff-0002eS-00@etlken> (message from Kenichi Handa on Wed, 05
	Oct 2005 16:26:35 +0900)
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:43767
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/43767>

    Then, why does sit-for return t if unread-command-events is not
    nil?

That is a good question.  Should it return nil immediately
without waiting when unread-command-events is nonempty?
That would be more coherent than the current behavior.
It would also be an incompatible change, and might break something.

There are about 550 calls to sit-for in the Emacs sources.
To check all of them would be a lot of work.

Perhaps we should make this change now, so that the pretesting
for the release will help us see if anything breaks.
What do people think?


Anyway, I installed your flyspell.el change as a work-around.