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: Network security manager Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:05:10 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87a93oh180.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83h9xw9zg3.fsf@gnu.org> <83d28k9yb9.fsf@gnu.org> <83ppcj9740.fsf@gnu.org> <83k32r89rd.fsf@gnu.org> <83tx1t6dv6.fsf@gnu.org> <83y4r53reb.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1416582370 28328 80.91.229.3 (21 Nov 2014 15:06:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:06:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Nov 21 16:06:03 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Xrpmd-0007sc-D3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 16:06:03 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40995 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xrpmc-0007Wz-VN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:06:02 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57436) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xrpm0-0007Vg-Jo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:05:32 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xrplt-0002pK-3s for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:05:24 -0500 Original-Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]:39496) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xrplt-0002p7-0R; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:05:17 -0500 Original-Received: from pastel.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id sALF5FI4024359; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:05:16 -0500 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id B0C5A43B8; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:05:10 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen's message of "Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:24:29 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV5132=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9393 : core <5132> : inlines <1552> : streams <1346255> : uri <1835569> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 132.204.246.22 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:177948 Archived-At: > I'm not sure, but I suspect that `inhibit-quit' is not a complete > solution to the general problem of determining when we're allowed to > prompt people from asynchronous code. No, indeed, it's probably not complete. But maybe it's close enough for cases like the one that started this thread. > (Executive summary: The asynchronous code should be allowed to prompt > users in buffers "where it belongs", I don't think that's true in general. It can be just as annoying for the user to be interrupted while doing something "in the same buffer". Stefan