From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#6355: 24.0.50; sit-for 0.0 returns nil without user input Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 01:07:44 -0800 Message-ID: <87txcjkxpb.fsf@building.gnus.org> References: <96D9702388274489BC359D8CD6629D00@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1391245752 12581 80.91.229.3 (1 Feb 2014 09:09:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 09:09:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 6355@debbugs.gnu.org To: "Drew Adams" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 01 10:09:19 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W9WZj-0000zN-5e for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 10:09:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60770 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W9WZi-0007CW-JU for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 04:09:18 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36840) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W9WZa-0007BF-6D for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 04:09:15 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W9WZT-0004Mq-14 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 04:09:10 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:58153) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W9WZS-0004Mm-TC for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 04:09:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1W9WZS-0003RX-FG for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 04:09:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 09:09:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6355 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: moreinfo Original-Received: via spool by 6355-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6355.139124573513205 (code B ref 6355); Sat, 01 Feb 2014 09:09:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 6355) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Feb 2014 09:08:55 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43936 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1W9WZK-0003Qu-Au for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 04:08:54 -0500 Original-Received: from hermes.netfonds.no ([80.91.224.195]:58986) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1W9WZG-0003Ql-Ox for 6355@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 04:08:51 -0500 Original-Received: from [204.14.154.233] (helo=building.gnus.org) by hermes.netfonds.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1W9WZ2-0003KQ-31; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 10:08:36 +0100 In-Reply-To: <96D9702388274489BC359D8CD6629D00@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Sat, 5 Jun 2010 08:17:39 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13001 (Ma Gnus v0.10) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-MailScanner-ID: 1W9WZ2-0003KQ-31 MailScanner-NULL-Check: 1391850517.00933@sI0qHhdKpDPSf20K7E73dw X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:84389 Archived-At: "Drew Adams" writes: > I do not have an emacs -Q recipe. If you just eval (sit-for 0.0) it > returns t. Executing some of the surrounding code I use also does not > reproduce the problem. But in my setup (too much to reproduce) it > always returns nil for 0.0. > > Dunno if maybe it's picking up some non-user event as if it were input. > I do know that without user input the return value is nil (in my > context). Is this still a problem? I'm unable to reproduce it. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/