Re: sit-for considered harmful in kbd-macros

Re: sit-for considered harmful in kbd-macros

[Stefan Monnier]

> > From: "Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/emacs@RUM.cs.yale.edu>
> > 
> > How about short-circuiting sit-for when called from a kbd-macro,
> > as if input was pending ?
> 
> > +  if (detect_input_pending_run_timers (display) || !NILP (Vexecuting_macro))
> >      return Qnil;
> 
> I'm pretty sure that's inappropriate when the argument to sit-for is
> non-zero, so the code should check for that.  (After all, what fun
> would C-x ( M-` t g t C-u C-x ) be if it did no redisplay?)

Actually, no, the whole point of the patch is to make sit-for
not wait even when the argument is non-zero.
The redisplay/noredisplay is handled by the other argument.


	Stefan


_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

Re: sit-for considered harmful in kbd-macros

[Kim F. Storm]

"Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/emacs@RUM.cs.yale.edu> writes:

> How about short-circuiting sit-for when called from a kbd-macro,
> as if input was pending ?
> 

I agree that it should definitely not delay execution (in fact, I
don't think 20.7 did that).  I don't know if it should perform
redisplay though.

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk


_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

Re: sit-for considered harmful in kbd-macros

[Stefan Monnier]

> > How about short-circuiting sit-for when called from a kbd-macro,
> > as if input was pending ?
> 
> I agree that it should definitely not delay execution (in fact, I
> don't think 20.7 did that).  I don't know if it should perform
> redisplay though.

I think it should behave exactly as if the macro's events were being
entered by the user: i.e. as if there was input pending.

So maybe the change should be done inside detect_input_pending_run_timers
(in keyboard.c).  Looking at requeued_events_pending_p (and the comment
before it), I see that someone has had similar ideas and that
pushing the idea further might not be as straightforward as it seems.

So maybe patching sit-for is good enough for now.


	Stefan


_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

Re: sit-for considered harmful in kbd-macros

[Richard Stallman]

    How about short-circuiting sit-for when called from a kbd-macro,
    as if input was pending ?

That might be a good idea.  On the other hand, it would be nice
if there were a command you could use inside a macro to do a
redisplay.

_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

Re: sit-for considered harmful in kbd-macros

[Stefan Monnier]

>     How about short-circuiting sit-for when called from a kbd-macro,
>     as if input was pending ?
> 
> That might be a good idea.  On the other hand, it would be nice
> if there were a command you could use inside a macro to do a
> redisplay.

I don't understand.  My patch doesn't prevent redisplay (which
will happen inside `detect_input_pending_run_timers').
So is there any real objection to my suggested patch:

--- dispnew.c	19 Jan 2002 13:54:57 -0000	1.300
+++ dispnew.c	8 Feb 2002 14:56:58 -0000
@@ -6175,7 +6175,7 @@
 
   swallow_events (display);
 
-  if (detect_input_pending_run_timers (display))
+  if (detect_input_pending_run_timers (display) || !NILP (Vexecuting_macro))
     return Qnil;
 
   if (initial_display)


-- Stefan


_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

Re: sit-for considered harmful in kbd-macros

[Richard Stallman]

    I don't understand.  My patch doesn't prevent redisplay (which
    will happen inside `detect_input_pending_run_timers').

In that case, is it redundant for sit_for to call
redisplay_preserve_echo_area?  If initial_display is nonzero
and display is too, does it redisplay twice?

    So is there any real objection to my suggested patch:

If the purpose is to prevent waiting, I tend to think
that is right.  Most of the time, when commands wait,
it is to make a message easier to see.  Inside a macro
I think it is better not to do that.

_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel