From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier via "Emacs development discussions." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: unwind-protect within while-no-input Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 22:49:30 -0400 Message-ID: References: <86msp1a24a.fsf@gnu.org> <86jzk4a5ck.fsf@gnu.org> <8634qs9yl0.fsf@gnu.org> <861q6c9wdj.fsf@gnu.org> <86r0ec87d5.fsf@gnu.org> <86edab8rml.fsf@gnu.org> <5f76435b-0ceb-4ec6-94fc-3de23587b459@gutov.dev> Reply-To: Stefan Monnier Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="37761"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:VLI3Vq2RFIvar/YwtzT1F+rsayg= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun May 26 04:50:42 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1sB3y6-0009ht-7I for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 26 May 2024 04:50:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sB3xd-0005tQ-MT; Sat, 25 May 2024 22:50:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sB3xW-0005ru-VL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 May 2024 22:50:08 -0400 Original-Received: from ciao.gmane.io ([116.202.254.214]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sB3xV-0003pz-6r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 May 2024 22:50:06 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1sB3xS-00091y-El for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 26 May 2024 04:50:02 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Received-SPF: pass client-ip=116.202.254.214; envelope-from=ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; helo=ciao.gmane.io X-Spam_score_int: -15 X-Spam_score: -1.6 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:319570 Archived-At: > To rephrase, does it sound like a good idea to wrap completion table queries > in (while-no-input ...) by default As a general rule, no. It only makes sense in some specific circumstances. > (another option is making it opt-in), and > what would be the best implementation choice for a "cleanup" block when your > code is inside while-no-input. That's what `unwind-protect` should be for. And if it doesn't work, we should fix that. Stefan