From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm)
Cc: cyd@stupidchicken.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Nested sit-for's
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:15:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m3y7tnfw9o.fsf@kfs-l.imdomain.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E1GDaxs-0000xM-MG@fencepost.gnu.org> (Richard Stallman's message of "Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:48 -0400")
Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> >> What about the change that we discussed where nested sit-for calls
> >> should not wait longer than any of the outer calls??
>
> I am not sure it is really a bug. Whether this behavior is incorrect
> depends on how you think of sit-for's purpose, and there is a natural
> way to think of it which makes this behavior correct. For the inner
> sit-for fail to wait for the time specified seems clearly wrong.
>
> My conclusion is that it is wrong for a timer to do a sit-for that
> lasts any substantial time. It should instead schedule a new timer.
> As long as jit-lock-stealth-nice is a short period such as 0.5, its
> sit-for cannot cause a big delay to anything else.
>
> The potential problem I do see is that jit-lock-stealth-fontify will
> keep looping as long as input-pending-p is nil. If it were to run
> from inside some other idle timer, that other idle timer would not get
> control back until fontification is finished. Making
> jit-lock-stealth-fontify's sit-for return faster won't avoid this
> problem, only reduce it, since jit-lock-stealth-fontify still would
> not return until it finishes fontification. The only solutions are
> (1) that jit-lock-stealth-fontify reschedule itself instead of using
> sit-for, or (2) that the other timer function avoid using sit-for.
> If several timers try this sit-for trick, then no matter what we make
> sit-for do, they can't all get the behavior they want, which is to do
> some more processing at a certain time in the future. The only method
> they can all use that enables them all to get this behavior is that of
> rescheduling timers.
>
> It would work to have ONE timer that does sit-for if we make a rule
> that no others can do so. We could define jit-lock as this one
> exception. (This has the advantage of not involving any change in the
> code, just comments and the Lisp Manual.)
>
> What do people think of that?
I agree with your analysis.
The "max sit-for" timeout hack may cause more problems than it solves,
so it is not TRT.
In general, timers should never use sit-for, so I think we should document
that in the manual.
But, IMO, if we make it a rule that timers should generally not use
sit-for, then a central function like jit-lock should definitely not
use sit-for!
--
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-08-17 11:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <E1GD2sr-0005PH-UP@savannah.gnu.org>
[not found] ` <m3bqqlka7e.fsf@kfs-l.imdomain.dk>
[not found] ` <87y7tp90i1.fsf@stupidchicken.com>
2006-08-16 8:14 ` Nested sit-for's Kim F. Storm
2006-08-16 19:08 ` Chong Yidong
2006-08-17 6:02 ` Richard Stallman
2006-08-17 11:15 ` Kim F. Storm [this message]
2006-08-17 14:02 ` David Kastrup
2006-08-18 15:47 ` Richard Stallman
2006-08-17 14:14 ` Chong Yidong
2006-08-17 15:09 ` Kim F. Storm
2006-08-17 17:21 ` Chong Yidong
2006-08-17 21:28 ` Kim F. Storm
2006-08-17 22:42 ` Chong Yidong
2006-08-17 16:05 ` martin rudalics
2006-08-17 21:33 ` Kim F. Storm
2006-08-18 9:03 ` martin rudalics
2006-08-18 9:26 ` Kim F. Storm
2006-08-20 13:54 ` Chong Yidong
2006-08-20 21:05 ` Kim F. Storm
2006-08-20 21:52 ` martin rudalics
2006-08-20 22:05 ` Kim F. Storm
2006-08-21 11:13 ` Richard Stallman
2006-08-21 11:45 ` Kim F. Storm
2006-08-21 16:14 ` Stefan Monnier
2006-08-21 17:18 ` martin rudalics
2006-08-22 1:40 ` Stefan Monnier
2006-08-22 7:42 ` Richard Stallman
2006-08-17 14:21 ` Chong Yidong
2006-08-18 15:47 ` Richard Stallman
2007-10-17 14:41 ` Juanma Barranquero
2007-10-18 5:02 ` Richard Stallman
2007-10-18 7:40 ` Juanma Barranquero
2007-10-23 7:13 ` Richard Stallman
2006-08-17 15:33 ` Drew Adams
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m3y7tnfw9o.fsf@kfs-l.imdomain.dk \
--to=storm@cua.dk \
--cc=cyd@stupidchicken.com \
--cc=emacs-devel@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).