From xemacs-m  Sat Mar 15 17:38:21 1997
Received: from beavis.bayserve.net (jmiller@port79.bayserve.net [206.148.244.170])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA24715
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 17:38:19 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from jmiller@localhost) by beavis.bayserve.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA00387; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 18:46:51 -0500
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 18:46:51 -0500
Message-Id: <199703152346.SAA00387@beavis.bayserve.net>
From: Jeff Miller <jmiller@bayserve.net>
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: process problem with 20.0?
In-Reply-To: <rv67ysn3bt.fsf@sdnp5.ucsd.edu>
References: <199703152219.RAA00223@beavis.bayserve.net>
	<rv67ysn3bt.fsf@sdnp5.ucsd.edu>
Reply-to: jmiller@bayserve.net
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.105)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

>>>>> "DM" == David Moore <dmoore@ucsd.edu> writes:

DM> It's fixed in recent 20.1s and 19.15s.  In the 20.0 release sit-for
DM> didn't cause processes to make forward progress, so you'd see this
DM> kind of looping.

cool.  

DM> Btw, the typical thing to use is (accept-process-output nil abit)
DM> instead of (sit-for abit) for a process loop like that.

ok, I'll look at putting something like that in there.

>> I know this is possibly one of the worst problem reports ever submitted
>> but I am not allowed to bring code out of the building. So I'm going
>> from memory.  Nor am I allowed to bring in "beta" code to see if the
>> problem has already been fixed.

DM> Made sense to me!  Thanks for the report.

amazing! :)   Thanks.

Jeff

