From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: called by a process filter?
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 20:25:34 -0400
Message-ID: <E1DWkTG-0005v2-6a@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <d5tmij$u03$1@sea.gmane.org> <E1DWBff-0003wZ-2F@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<m3is1oy5vn.fsf@kfs-l.imdomain.dk>
	<E1DWP3T-0001uV-U8@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<m3sm0rs9x9.fsf@kfs-l.imdomain.dk>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1116030844 13610 80.91.229.2 (14 May 2005 00:34:04 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 00:34:04 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: ihs_4664@yahoo.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat May 14 02:42:01 2005
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165])
	by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1DWkiu-0005Y8-Jt
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 14 May 2005 02:41:45 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1DWkkQ-0007WY-Jy
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 20:43:18 -0400
Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1DWkdJ-0005AE-3O
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 20:35:57 -0400
Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1DWkcz-00052k-52
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 20:35:41 -0400
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DWkcu-0004yN-VS
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 20:35:32 -0400
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DWkaG-0007Ps-3Z
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 20:32:48 -0400
Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34)
	id 1DWkTG-0005v2-6a; Fri, 13 May 2005 20:25:34 -0400
Original-To: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm)
In-reply-to: <m3sm0rs9x9.fsf@kfs-l.imdomain.dk> (storm@cua.dk)
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:37102
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:37102

    > If something looks at this-command inside a process filter, it is
    > probably broken already.  In general it is unpredictable what command
    > is running, or was just running, when the process filter is called.
    > So such code would currently get unpredictable results.

    True.  

    We should set this-command to nil while we a reading a key sequence at
    the top level (and thus may run anync code).

That would be a clean approach.

As for this-process, it would be clean and safe, but at present there
is no clear need to add it.