Re: Revamping sit-for

[Chong Yidong]

> The doc string says, to me, that an existing call of (sit-for 3 200), which
> previously simply waited 3.2 sec, with no inhibition of display, will now be
> interpreted as a wait of 3.0 sec, with inhibition of display. That's a
> serious change in behavior.

  if (NILP (nodisp) && !NUMBERP (milliseconds))
    { /* New style.  */
      nodisp = milliseconds;
      milliseconds = Qnil;
    }

However, since the old form has been obsolete for a long time, and can
cause confusion (as demonstrated), it might be good to simply drop it.