Re: Should `cancel-timer' use `delete' instead of `delq'?

[Kevin Rodgers <ihs_4664@yahoo.com>]

Drew Adams wrote:
>     > (defvar foo-timer
>     >   (progn ; Cancel to prevent ~duplication.
>     >     (when (boundp 'foo-timer) (cancel-timer foo-timer))
>     >     (run-with-idle-timer 2 t 'foo))
>     >   "Timer used to foo whenever Emacs is idle.")
> 
>     The traditional way to do something like the above is:
> 
>       (defvar foo-timer nil)
>       (define-minor-mode foo "blala" :toto 1 :titi 0
>         (when foo-timer
>           (cancel foo-timer)
>           (setq foo-timer nil))
>         (when foo-mode
>           (setq foo-timer (run-with-idle-timer 5 t 'foo-fun))))
> 
> OK. I'm not sure why that's better, but it does seem to move a little toward
> the direction I was suggesting with a `define-idle-timer' macro.

It seems clearly better to me, because the (progn ...) form in your
defvar will only be evalated once: the first time, when foo-timer
is unbound.  Or am I missing something, in particular something that
would subsequently make foo-timer unbound?

-- 
Kevin