RE: Nested sit-for's

[Drew Adams]

    It would work to have ONE timer that does sit-for if we make a rule
    that no others can do so.  We could define jit-lock as this one
    exception.  (This has the advantage of not involving any change in the
    code, just comments and the Lisp Manual.)

    What do people think of that?

Caveat: I'm ignorant on this question, and I haven't been following the
thread closely.

It occurred to me that if you want only one timer to do something like this,
and you want to always use that timer for this functionality, then a special
timer should be designated specifically for that, and it should not have
"jit-lock" in its name.

This would make things (e.g. doc) clearer. Let jit-lock use the special
timer, but just don't name it "jit-lock".

Again, ignore if I'm missing the point here.