Re: Nested sit-for's

[David Kastrup]

address@hidden (Kim F. Storm) writes:

> Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> It would work to have ONE timer that does sit-for if we make a rule
>> that no others can do so.  We could define jit-lock as this one
>> exception.  (This has the advantage of not involving any change in
>> the code, just comments and the Lisp Manual.)
>>
>> What do people think of that?
>
> I agree with your analysis.  
>
> In general, timers should never use sit-for, so I think we should
> document that in the manual.
>
> But, IMO, if we make it a rule that timers should generally not use
> sit-for, then a central function like jit-lock should definitely not
> use sit-for!

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

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum