From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: The order input events are processed. Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:11:08 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87odtrrkgh.fsf@lrde.org> <87ejukt7fe.fsf@lrde.org> <87zmd7x3qk.fsf@lrde.org> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1157983916 27566 80.91.229.2 (11 Sep 2006 14:11:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:11:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Sep 11 16:11:54 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GMmVM-0005Xl-Ad for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:11:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GMmVL-0006R9-OM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:11:19 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GMmVB-0006R4-HG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:11:09 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GMmVB-0006Qs-8B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:11:09 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GMmVA-0006Qp-W4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:11:09 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1GMmWS-000806-J9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:12:28 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1GMmVA-0001rh-5f; Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:11:08 -0400 Original-To: michael.cadilhac@lrde.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Micha=EBl?= Cadilhac) In-reply-to: <87zmd7x3qk.fsf@lrde.org> (michael.cadilhac@lrde.org) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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:59678 Archived-At: > \(fn SECONDS &optional NODISP)" > ! (unless (or unread-command-events > ! unread-post-input-method-events > ! unread-input-method-events > ! (>=3D unread-command-char 0)) Isn't input-pending-p enough? input-pending-p does not check all of those variables. Is that a bug? I was thinking of an active loop because I thought the test had to be made here, replacing =AB read-event =BB. If we're sure read-event will not take an event from unread-input-method-events here, then it's ok. If unread-input-method-events is empty, then nothing can be taken from it. So the only way this could happen is if something were to run inside read-event which made unread-input-method-events nonempty. That is not impossible; various things can call Lisp code from inside read-event and they COULD put something on unread-input-method-events. But that would be very strange usage. So I think we are ok.