[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: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:45:47 -0500

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

address@hidden said:
> That is the first thing I said.  Afterwards I agreed to a modified
> version of the change which avoids the ugliness at the Lisp level. 

I then said:
>     I don't understand what you're referring to.
>     Are you saying that you did agree to a version that was not using `throw' 
> ?

To which you now reply:
> I agreed to the version using `throw'.  That is what I was referring to.

Could you explain what is unclean about using `signal' ?
Currently, the only non-local exit that ever happens "asynchronously"
is the quit signal and it's also the only thing that obeys the
inhibit-quit flag.  The feature I'd like to introduce is also
an asynchonous non-local exit and should also obey the inhibit-quit
flag, so it seems eminently natural to use a quit signal as well.

The fact that the implementation is easier this way is just
reflects the fact that it is the "right" approach.


reply via email to

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