From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juanma Barranquero Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: timer.el questions Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:19:22 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <20020716081819.57D2.LEKTU@terra.es> References: <20020715101329.595A.LEKTU@terra.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1026800427 32674 127.0.0.1 (16 Jul 2002 06:20:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 06:20:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17ULhB-0008Un-00 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:20:25 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17ULry-0005Zj-00 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:31:34 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17ULh4-0003QY-00; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 02:20:18 -0400 Original-Received: from [62.22.27.141] (helo=mail.peoplecall.com) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17ULgP-0003Pn-00 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 02:19:37 -0400 Original-Received: from [62.22.27.143] (jbarranquero.ofi.peoplecall.com [62.22.27.143]) by mail.peoplecall.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6G6JLM03481; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:19:21 +0200 Original-To: Ken Raeburn In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.05.03 Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:5778 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:5778 On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:21:26 -0400, Ken Raeburn wrote: > From the code you quoted, I'd say "a positive number" would be more > accurate. Well, yeah, sure ;-) I was following the original docstring, but you're right, it's better to be precise. /L/e/k/t/u