From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH updated] Support for filesystem watching (inotify) Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 15:06:51 -0300 Message-ID: References: <201106040034.15598.ruediger@c-plusplus.de> <8762olmk6y.fsf@ambire.localdomain> <201106061825.25078.ruediger@c-plusplus.de> <871uz6hg1d.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87boy9oahp.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1307470306 28059 80.91.229.12 (7 Jun 2011 18:11:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 18:11:46 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jun 07 20:11:42 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QU0kg-0006hi-Mc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 20:11:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43074 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QU0kf-0000t3-8E for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:11:41 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:50603) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QU0g4-0008CU-MM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:06:58 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QU0g3-00017q-8r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:06:56 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:58988) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QU0g2-00017h-V9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:06:55 -0400 Original-Received: from 121-249-126-200.fibertel.com.ar ([200.126.249.121]:62349 helo=ceviche.home) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QU0g2-0000w9-K9; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:06:54 -0400 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 7AE76660DD; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 15:06:51 -0300 (ART) In-Reply-To: <87boy9oahp.fsf@lifelogs.com> (Ted Zlatanov's message of "Tue, 07 Jun 2011 11:46:26 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.10 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:140270 Archived-At: SM> That doesn't sound right to me. At least I'm having trouble figuring SM> out how to bend my mind such that this file-watcher matches (even SM> coarsely) the concept of a "future". [...] > So `file-watch' would return > (make-url-future :value (lambda () (unwatch file here)) > :errorback (lambda (&rest d) (handle unwatch errors)) > :callback (lambda (f) (arbitrary callback))) I'm not saying you can't twist the code so that it works, but it makes no sense at the conceptual level. The file-watcher callback may be called several times; unwatching a file has nothing to do with "get the resulting value"; ... It's just a completely wrong analogy. Stefan