Re: while-no-input interrupted by *shell*

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA>]

>> This said, the bulk of my answer isn't affected: sit-for shouldn't be
>> interrupted by subprocess output either, I think.
> Really?  I think sit-for is expected to stop waiting when we read
> something from a subprocess;

Hmm... Really?  I'm not sure what's really the ideal behavior, nor what
we've done historically, but it seems undesirable to pay attention to
subprocess output (in general subprocess output is unrelated to the
Elisp calling sit-for).

I thought accept-process-output waits for subprocess output and sit-for
waits for input events (and we don't have any direct fonction to wait for both
at the same time).


        Stefan