[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: while-no-input
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: while-no-input |
Date: |
Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:45:47 -0500 |
Kim said:
> IIRC, RMS said that using signal like that was very unclean and
> using throw would be cleaner.
address@hidden said:
> That is the first thing I said. Afterwards I agreed to a modified
> version of the change which avoids the ugliness at the Lisp level.
I then said:
> I don't understand what you're referring to.
> Are you saying that you did agree to a version that was not using `throw'
> ?
To which you now reply:
> I agreed to the version using `throw'. That is what I was referring to.
Could you explain what is unclean about using `signal' ?
Currently, the only non-local exit that ever happens "asynchronously"
is the quit signal and it's also the only thing that obeys the
inhibit-quit flag. The feature I'd like to introduce is also
an asynchonous non-local exit and should also obey the inhibit-quit
flag, so it seems eminently natural to use a quit signal as well.
The fact that the implementation is easier this way is just
reflects the fact that it is the "right" approach.
Stefan
- Re: while-no-input, (continued)
- Re: while-no-input, Stefan Monnier, 2002/10/04
- Re: while-no-input, Richard Stallman, 2002/10/05
- Re: while-no-input, Kim F. Storm, 2002/10/23
- Re: while-no-input, Stefan Monnier, 2002/10/24
- Re: while-no-input, Kim F. Storm, 2002/10/24
- Re: while-no-input, Richard Stallman, 2002/10/25
- Re: while-no-input, Kim F. Storm, 2002/10/25
- Re: while-no-input, Richard Stallman, 2002/10/26
- Re: while-no-input, Stefan Monnier, 2002/10/25
- Re: while-no-input, Richard Stallman, 2002/10/26
- Re: while-no-input,
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: while-no-input, Richard Stallman, 2002/10/31
- Re: while-no-input, Stefan Monnier, 2002/10/31
- Re: while-no-input, Kim F. Storm, 2002/10/05