[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Emacs-diffs] Changes to emacs/lisp/gnus/nnheader.el [emacs-unicode-2]
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
[Emacs-diffs] Changes to emacs/lisp/gnus/nnheader.el [emacs-unicode-2] |
Date: |
Thu, 14 Oct 2004 05:17:32 -0400 |
Index: emacs/lisp/gnus/nnheader.el
diff -c emacs/lisp/gnus/nnheader.el:1.17.6.3
emacs/lisp/gnus/nnheader.el:1.17.6.4
*** emacs/lisp/gnus/nnheader.el:1.17.6.3 Wed Sep 29 07:22:15 2004
--- emacs/lisp/gnus/nnheader.el Thu Oct 14 08:50:05 2004
***************
*** 74,80 ****
(defvar nnheader-read-timeout
(if (string-match "windows-nt\\|os/2\\|emx\\|cygwin"
(symbol-name system-type))
! 1.0 ; why?
0.1)
"How long nntp should wait between checking for the end of output.
Shorter values mean quicker response, but are more CPU intensive.")
--- 74,88 ----
(defvar nnheader-read-timeout
(if (string-match "windows-nt\\|os/2\\|emx\\|cygwin"
(symbol-name system-type))
! ;; http://thread.gmane.org/address@hidden
! ;;
! ;; IIRC, values lower than 1.0 didn't/don't work on Windows/DOS.
! ;;
! ;; There should probably be a runtime test to determine the timing
! ;; resolution, or a primitive to report it. I don't know off-hand
! ;; what's possible. Perhaps better, maybe the Windows/DOS primitive
! ;; could round up non-zero timeouts to a minimum of 1.0?
! 1.0
0.1)
"How long nntp should wait between checking for the end of output.
Shorter values mean quicker response, but are more CPU intensive.")
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- [Emacs-diffs] Changes to emacs/lisp/gnus/nnheader.el [emacs-unicode-2],
Miles Bader <=