Re: Nested sit-for's

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

    If we are in the temptation to let a central function like jit-lock
    use sit-for in a timer, that means that there is a general perceived
    need to do that.

That does not follow.  But perhaps it is not clear to me what
"that" refers to here.

		      So we should create a convenient way to do the
    equivalent, document it, and use it ourselves.

I can't tell whether "a way to do the equivalent" includes
what I have just done, or not.