visible-bell vs. holding down a key

visible-bell vs. holding down a key

[jidanni]

Gentlemen, do
$ emacs -Q --eval "(set-variable 'visible-bell t)"
C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b...

Shouldn't emacs be smart enough to notice we are launching a denial of
service attack on ourselves, that lasts much longer than we held the
key down? Shouldn't just a few messages be enough? emacs-version "22.1.1"

Re: visible-bell vs. holding down a key

[Bastien]

jidanni@jidanni.org writes:

> Gentlemen, do
> $ emacs -Q --eval "(set-variable 'visible-bell t)"
> C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b...
>
> Shouldn't emacs be smart enough to notice we are launching a denial of
> service attack on ourselves, that lasts much longer than we held the
> key down? Shouldn't just a few messages be enough? emacs-version "22.1.1"

Emacs is smart enough not to bother if you're not.

-- 
Bastien

Re: visible-bell vs. holding down a key

[Richard Stallman]

    Gentlemen, do
    $ emacs -Q --eval "(set-variable 'visible-bell t)"
    C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b...

    Shouldn't emacs be smart enough to notice we are launching a denial of
    service attack on ourselves, that lasts much longer than we held the
    key down? Shouldn't just a few messages be enough? emacs-version "22.1.1"

I don't think this is a bug but I agree that what you request
would be an improvement.  It may not be easy to do.
If someone provides a clean patch we can install it.

Re: visible-bell vs. holding down a key

[jidanni]

>>>>> "r" == Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

r>     Gentlemen, do
r>     $ emacs -Q --eval "(set-variable 'visible-bell t)"
r>     C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b C-b...

r>     Shouldn't emacs be smart enough to notice we are launching a denial of
r>     service attack on ourselves, that lasts much longer than we held the
r>     key down? Shouldn't just a few messages be enough? emacs-version "22.1.1"

r> I don't think this is a bug but I agree that what you request
r> would be an improvement.  It may not be easy to do.
r> If someone provides a clean patch we can install it.

I forgot to mention to do the above under X windows, where it takes
much longer for the terminal to digest all the
"call-interactively: Beginning of buffer [111 times]"
messages and flashing. Indeed, we see the *Messages* buffer already
knows when something repeats, don't say it again... but the time frame
is unlimited there. Anyway, no big deal.