[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: run-with-timer vs run-with-idle-timer
From: |
Thien-Thi Nguyen |
Subject: |
Re: run-with-timer vs run-with-idle-timer |
Date: |
Sat, 12 May 2018 19:57:43 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
() João Távora <address@hidden>
() Fri, 11 May 2018 12:05:48 +0100
> I suppose it's a matter of style.
Just to clarify, since I've just realised we're talking about
two independent things here:
1. "catch/loop/throw" vs "let/test/loop/set" is indeed a
matter of style (but you've probably convinced me to
prefer the latter).
Yeah, that was my meaning. I look forward to learning why
‘run-with-idle-timer’ is even necessary (my only experience w/
that is in zone.el func ‘zone-when-idle’).
2. It's the short timeout to accept-process-output that I'm
supposing hurts performance, but it can also be lengthened
using the first idiom.
Why does a short timeout hurt performance? My understanding is:
large timeout => more time for subproc to do its thing => bigger
and fewer chunks of input => less overhead relatively => better
overall performance.
[timeout value gyrations]
Sounds somewhat cargo-cult. Just like Emacs, i suppose... :-D
--
Thien-Thi Nguyen -----------------------------------------------
(defun responsep (query)
(pcase (context query)
(`(technical ,ml) (correctp ml))
...)) 748E A0E8 1CB8 A748 9BFA
--------------------------------------- 6CE4 6703 2224 4C80 7502
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: run-with-timer vs run-with-idle-timer, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2018/05/10