[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: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 03:20:59 -0400

> "Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/address@hidden> writes:
> > > However, it would cleaner if instead of generating a quit signal it
> > > did a throw to a specified tag.
> > 
> > The reason I didn't do that is that it didn't seem necessary
> > and that I didn't want the QUIT macro to grow, but I could introduce
> > a new function `quit' that the QUIT macro could call and which would
> > either call `Fsignal (Qquit, Qnil)' ot `Fthrow (...)'.
> Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
> > That would be ok.
> Stefan,
> What happened with this feature?

Backburner.  Because I have other things to do for now and also because,
to tell you the truth, I'm not really psyched at the idea of using `throw'
instead of (signal 'quit <value>): after all this quit-on-input is really
a variant of `quit' and not something of a different nature.
Proof is that it should (and does) obey inhibit-quit.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]