From: Phil Sainty <psainty@orcon.net.nz>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Cc: michael_heerdegen@web.de, 37875@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#37875: 27.0.50; `run-with-timer' not documented in (elisp)Timers
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 00:34:33 +1300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2d52039c-5ba3-0ac5-b514-8e3bf00a6aad@orcon.net.nz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87wocn23y1.fsf@gnus.org>
On 30/10/19 12:20 AM, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:
> Not really -- I wondered why there were two functions (run-with-timer
> and run-at-time) that are identical.
>
> It could be made into a defalias at least -- the run-at-time doc string
> is much better than the run-with-timer one.
I think the point is this:
(run-with-idle-timer SECS REPEAT FUNCTION &rest ARGS)
(run-with-timer SECS REPEAT FUNCTION &rest ARGS)
(run-at-time TIME REPEAT FUNCTION &rest ARGS)
`run-with-timer' is the non-idle analog of `run-with-idle-timer',
with a documented expectation that one passes it a number of
seconds as its first argument SECS, being the timeout to use.
So if I see either `run-with-timer' or `run-with-idle-timer' then
I know I'm looking at a timeout argument in seconds.
`run-with-time' has a different argument, TIME, which *may* be a
number of seconds (and therefore `run-with-timer' can be defined
in terms of this); but ostensibly it's a more general function.
I'd argue for keeping them both. If anything, I'd be inclined to
add validation to `run-with-timer' to check that an integer was
passed.
-Phil
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-29 11:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-22 18:38 bug#37875: 27.0.50; `run-with-timer' not documented in (elisp)Timers Phil Sainty
2019-10-23 7:01 ` Michael Heerdegen
2019-10-28 15:55 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2019-10-28 17:00 ` Eli Zaretskii
2019-10-29 11:20 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2019-10-29 11:34 ` Phil Sainty [this message]
2019-10-29 12:31 ` Eli Zaretskii
2019-10-29 12:37 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2019-10-29 12:41 ` Eli Zaretskii
2019-10-29 21:22 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
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
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2d52039c-5ba3-0ac5-b514-8e3bf00a6aad@orcon.net.nz \
--to=psainty@orcon.net.nz \
--cc=37875@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=larsi@gnus.org \
--cc=michael_heerdegen@web.de \
/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 external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.