Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     However,  I've   always  dreamt  about  an  unique   entry  point  for
>     unread-events: unread-command-events would  store direct events (u-c-e
>     =3D '(?a ?b))  or events as a cons, the cdr  telling if input-method has
>     to be used (u-c-e =3D '(?a (?b . nil) ?c)). Does it seems crazy? [2]
>
> It seems ugly and complex.  Not as good as the present scheme.

Okey.

>   \(fn SECONDS &optional NODISP)"
> !   (unless (or unread-command-events
> ! 	      unread-post-input-method-events
> ! 	      unread-input-method-events
> ! 	      (>= unread-command-char 0))

Isn't input-pending-p enough?

> !     (when (or obsolete (numberp nodisp))
> !       (setq seconds (+ seconds (* 1e-3 nodisp)))
> !       (setq nodisp obsolete))
> !     (if noninteractive
> ! 	(progn (sleep-for seconds) t)
> !       (unless nodisp (redisplay))
> !       (or (<= seconds 0)
> ! 	  (let ((read (read-event nil nil seconds)))
> ! 	    (or (null read)
> ! 		(progn (push read unread-command-events) nil)))))))

I was thinking of an active loop because I thought the test had to be
made here, replacing « read-event ».  If we're sure read-event will
not take an event from unread-input-method-events here, then it's ok.

-- 
 |      Michaėl `Micha' Cadilhac   |  Si les religions etaient aussi tole-  |
 |         Epita/LRDE Promo 2007   |  rantes qu'elles le pretendent, il y   |
 | http://www.lrde.org/~cadilh_m   |  a longtemps qu'il n'y en aurait plus  |
 `--  -   JID: micha@amessage.be --'           -- Moustic              -  --'