From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: while-no-input interrupted by *shell* Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 14:35:50 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87sh1y535s.fsf@web.de> <8336tyc1ou.fsf@gnu.org> <83woraal0c.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1537814038 8891 195.159.176.226 (24 Sep 2018 18:33:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 18:33:58 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Sep 24 20:33:54 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1g4VgA-0002C8-5e for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 20:33:54 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46451 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g4ViG-0001IF-Ob for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 14:36:04 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47178) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g4Vi8-0001Hw-4K for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 14:35:56 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g4Vi4-0000NG-WC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 14:35:56 -0400 Original-Received: from chene.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.20]:50828) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g4Vi4-0000Mv-Np; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 14:35:52 -0400 Original-Received: from fmsmemgm.homelinux.net (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by chene.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.7/8.14.1) with ESMTP id w8OIZoOw015391; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 14:35:51 -0400 Original-Received: by fmsmemgm.homelinux.net (Postfix, from userid 20848) id C830EAE251; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 14:35:50 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83woraal0c.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Mon, 24 Sep 2018 20:00:19 +0300") X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 2 Rules triggered EDT_SA_DN_PASS=0, RV6380=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9418 : core <6380> : inlines <6893> : streams <1799402> : uri <2717245> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 132.204.246.20 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:230034 Archived-At: >> This said, the bulk of my answer isn't affected: sit-for shouldn't be >> interrupted by subprocess output either, I think. > Really? I think sit-for is expected to stop waiting when we read > something from a subprocess; Hmm... Really? I'm not sure what's really the ideal behavior, nor what we've done historically, but it seems undesirable to pay attention to subprocess output (in general subprocess output is unrelated to the Elisp calling sit-for). I thought accept-process-output waits for subprocess output and sit-for waits for input events (and we don't have any direct fonction to wait for both at the same time). Stefan