Re: while-no-input

[Kim F. Storm]

"Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/address@hidden> writes:

> > "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.

IIRC, RMS said that using signal like that was very unclean and using throw
would be cleaner.

But I tend to agree with you that just using signal would be both
simpler and more correct (obeying inhibit-quit), and I really don't
see why using throw [making the implementation more trickly] can
be said to be (much) cleaner than your original approach!

-- 
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk