Re: run-with-timer vs run-with-idle-timer

[Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@gnu.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1334 bytes --]


() João Távora <joaotavora@gmail.com>
() Fri, 11 May 2018 12:05:48 +0100

   > I suppose it's a matter of style.

   Just to clarify, since I've just realised we're talking about
   two independent things here:

   1. "catch/loop/throw" vs "let/test/loop/set" is indeed a
      matter of style (but you've probably convinced me to
      prefer the latter).

Yeah, that was my meaning.  I look forward to learning why
‘run-with-idle-timer’ is even necessary (my only experience w/
that is in zone.el func ‘zone-when-idle’).

   2. It's the short timeout to accept-process-output that I'm
      supposing hurts performance, but it can also be lengthened
      using the first idiom.

Why does a short timeout hurt performance?  My understanding is:
large timeout => more time for subproc to do its thing => bigger
and fewer chunks of input => less overhead relatively => better
overall performance.

      [timeout value gyrations]

Sounds somewhat cargo-cult.  Just like Emacs, i suppose... :-D

-- 
Thien-Thi Nguyen -----------------------------------------------
 (defun responsep (query)
   (pcase (context query)
     (`(technical ,ml) (correctp ml))
     ...))                              748E A0E8 1CB8 A748 9BFA
--------------------------------------- 6CE4 6703 2224 4C80 7502


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]