[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: |
Mon, 21 Aug 2006 07:13:15 -0400 |
IIUC, the recent addition of current-idle-time by RMS was supposed to
fix the sit-for in jit-lock problem in a different way. But so far,
RMS' changes to jit-lock have not been installed... What's up???
Someone else proposed a different change to the same part of jit-lock,
and I have not had time (while sufficiently alert) to study that,
so I don't have any idea which solution is better.
I sent my changes to the list yesterday; what do others think about
them?
- Re: Nested sit-for's, (continued)
- 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
- Re: Nested sit-for's, Kim F. Storm, 2006/08/20
- Re: Nested sit-for's, martin rudalics, 2006/08/20
- Re: Nested sit-for's, Kim F. Storm, 2006/08/20
- Re: Nested sit-for's,
Richard Stallman <=
- Re: Nested sit-for's, Kim F. Storm, 2006/08/21
- Re: Nested sit-for's, Stefan Monnier, 2006/08/21
- Re: Nested sit-for's, martin rudalics, 2006/08/21
- Re: Nested sit-for's, Stefan Monnier, 2006/08/21
- Re: Nested sit-for's, Richard Stallman, 2006/08/22
Re: Nested sit-for's, Chong Yidong, 2006/08/17
RE: Nested sit-for's, Drew Adams, 2006/08/17