From xemacs-m  Thu Jan 23 11:33:29 1997
Received: from jagor.srce.hr (hniksic@jagor.srce.hr [161.53.2.130])
          by xemacs.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP
	  id LAA15952 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 11:33:23 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from hniksic@localhost)
          by jagor.srce.hr (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id SAA05451; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 18:33:18 +0100 (MET)
Sender: hniksic@public.srce.hr
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: Sort of a bug in Fsit-for and Fsleep-for
References: <199701221635.RAA00914@sen2.ida.liu.se> 	<kigohego1eh.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> <QQbztk06098.199701231702@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
X-URL: ftp://gnjilux.cc.fer.hr/pub/unix/util/wget/
X-Attribution: Hrv
X-Face: &}4JQk=L;e.~x+|eo]#DGk@x3~ed!.~lZ}YQcYb7f[WL9L'Z*+OyA\nAEL1M(".[qvI#a2E
 6WYI5>>e7'@_)3Ol9p|Nn2wNa/;~06jL*B%tTcn/XvhAu7qeES0\|MF%$;sI#yn1+y"
From: Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>
Date: 23 Jan 1997 18:33:17 +0100
In-Reply-To: "Worry F. Wart"'s message of Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:02:51 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <kigvi8o1ele.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
Lines: 19
X-Mailer: Red Gnus v0.82/XEmacs 19.14

Worry F. Wart (kyle_jones@wonderworks.com) wrote:
>  > It doesn't look dangerous for Fsit_for and Fsleep_for to
>  > terminate on a process event.  Why don't you make the change,
>  > and see what happens to your XEmacs environment?  I think a
>  > breakage in that area would be pretty obvious.
> 
> Be careful.  The documented behavior of sit-for is to sleep until
> the time expires or _user_ input is available.  It is late in the
> beta cycle to be changing the semantics of a Lisp function like
> this.  The bug needs to be fixed, but we should avoid changing
> semantics if possible.

How does GNU Emacs handle this?  Through their example we can test
whether such a changed behaviour is acceptable.

-- 
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
The end of the world is coming...  SAVE YOUR BUFFERS!

