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: Nested sit-for's Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 03:42:27 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87y7tp90i1.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87hd0bjvoi.fsf@furball.mit.edu> <44E493E0.5000205@gmx.at> <44E58248.7020202@gmx.at> <87irknqzpv.fsf@furball.mit.edu> <87r6zaf4ym.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1156232983 8650 80.91.229.2 (22 Aug 2006 07:49:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 07:49:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rudalics@gmx.at, cyd@stupidchicken.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, storm@cua.dk Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 22 09:49:41 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 1GFR0w-0002FN-CK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 09:49:34 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GFR0v-0002cu-Ch for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 03:49:33 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GFQu6-00061b-7V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 03:42:30 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GFQu5-00060k-1V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 03:42:29 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GFQu4-00060H-BI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 03:42:28 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1GFR1d-0004FV-7L for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 03:50:17 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1GFQu3-0000Db-AI; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 03:42:27 -0400 Original-To: Stefan Monnier In-reply-to: <87r6zaf4ym.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> (message from Stefan Monnier on Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:14:18 -0400) 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:58697 Archived-At: I think we could clean up the code even more by extending run-with-idle-timer as follows: (run-with-idle-timer SECS REPEAT FUNCTION &rest ARGS) Perform an action the next time Emacs is idle for SECS seconds. The action is to call function with arguments ARGS. SECS may be an integer or a floating point number. If REPEAT is non-nil, do the action each time Emacs has been idle for exactly SECS seconds (that is, only once for each time Emacs becomes idle). Additionally, if REPEAT is a number, repeat the action every REPEAT seconds as long as Emacs stays idle. That feature could be useful for some cases, but unconditional repetition isn't quite what we want for the jit-lock case. So let's not add it now.