[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: question about `sit-for' and `C-g'

From: Drew Adams
Subject: RE: question about `sit-for' and `C-g'
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 17:16:27 -0700

It seems that all I had to do was define a substitute for `sit-for' that does
exactly the same thing but also binds `inhibit-quit' to t around the call to

I'm still interested in the questions I posed and learning more about this.

My next question is whether `sit-for' itself should do the same thing: bind
`inhibit-quit' to t.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]