[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Nested sit-for's
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: Nested sit-for's |
Date: |
Fri, 18 Aug 2006 11:47:53 -0400 |
If we are in the temptation to let a central function like jit-lock
use sit-for in a timer, that means that there is a general perceived
need to do that.
That does not follow. But perhaps it is not clear to me what
"that" refers to here.
So we should create a convenient way to do the
equivalent, document it, and use it ourselves.
I can't tell whether "a way to do the equivalent" includes
what I have just done, or not.
- Nested sit-for's, Kim F. Storm, 2006/08/16
- Re: Nested sit-for's, Chong Yidong, 2006/08/16
- Re: Nested sit-for's, Richard Stallman, 2006/08/17
- Re: Nested sit-for's, Kim F. Storm, 2006/08/17
- Re: Nested sit-for's, Chong Yidong, 2006/08/17
- Re: Nested sit-for's, Kim F. Storm, 2006/08/17
- Re: Nested sit-for's, Chong Yidong, 2006/08/17
- Re: Nested sit-for's, Kim F. Storm, 2006/08/17
- Re: Nested sit-for's, Chong Yidong, 2006/08/17
- Re: Nested sit-for's, martin rudalics, 2006/08/17
- Re: Nested sit-for's, Kim F. Storm, 2006/08/17
- Re: Nested sit-for's, martin rudalics, 2006/08/18
- Re: Nested sit-for's, Kim F. Storm, 2006/08/18
- Re: Nested sit-for's, Chong Yidong, 2006/08/20