Re: Nested sit-for's

[Kim F. Storm]

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

>     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?

I haven't fully understood either of the two approaches, but Martin's
approach which completely avoids using sit-for in the timer handler
looks vastly superior to me for that reason alone!

-- 
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk