From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: sit-for Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 11:50:55 -0400 Message-ID: References: <854px1e8xx.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <877j1spg1d.fsf@stupidchicken.com> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1154620310 5735 80.91.229.2 (3 Aug 2006 15:51:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 15:51:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: cyd@stupidchicken.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Aug 03 17:51:49 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G8fU3-00028h-Rt for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:51:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G8fU3-0003yk-9G for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 03 Aug 2006 11:51:39 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1G8fTO-0003Mk-4T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Aug 2006 11:50:58 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1G8fTN-0003MI-LJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Aug 2006 11:50:57 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G8fTN-0003MB-Ah for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Aug 2006 11:50:57 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1G8fWj-0007WJ-W0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Aug 2006 11:54:26 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1G8fTL-0002Xd-Hn; Thu, 03 Aug 2006 11:50:55 -0400 Original-To: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) In-reply-to: (storm@cua.dk) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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:58053 Archived-At: > Another possibility just occurred to me. Unlike the old sit-for, the > new sit-for is not interrupted by input coming from processes (as > opposed to user input). If gnus (or some other package) relies on > this behavior, a bug will arise. IMO, sit-for should never be interrupted by input coming from a subprocess (that is what accept-process-output is for), and code which relies on that behaviour is wrong. Did the old sit-for really wake up when process input came in? It was never supposed to -- that would have been a bug. But I don't recall seeing any reports of such a bug. The bug was that input events that did not correspond to any real input could wake it up. But process output does not work by generating input events.