From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/22425 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Hrvoje Niksic Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: nnmail-split-header-length-limit is EVIL! Date: 13 Apr 1999 09:04:00 +0200 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: <87g165ypb3.fsf@pc-hrvoje.srce.hr> References: <87sobotazh.fsf@pc-hrvoje.srce.hr> <87u2vxfn00.fsf@pc-hrvoje.srce.hr> <87k8whq4kx.fsf@pc-hrvoje.srce.hr> <8790cgf3pl.fsf@graaff.xs4all.nl> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035160347 29243 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 00:32:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 00:32:27 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from farabi.math.uh.edu (farabi.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.57]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA10300 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 03:08:44 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by farabi.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id CAB09624; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 02:04:33 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Tue, 13 Apr 1999 02:05:01 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (root@sclp3.sclp.com [204.252.123.139]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA29584 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 02:04:50 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from pc-hrvoje.srce.hr (mail@pc-hrvoje.srce.hr [161.53.2.132]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA10241 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 03:04:40 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from hniksic by pc-hrvoje.srce.hr with local (Exim 2.05 #1 (Debian)) id 10WxEm-0005Kr-00; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 09:04:00 +0200 Original-To: ding@gnus.org X-Attribution: Hrvoje X-Face: &{dT~)Pu6V<0y?>3p$;@vh\`C7xB~A0T-J%Og)J,@-1%q6Q+, gs<-9M#&`I8cJp2b1{vPE|~+JE+gx;a7%BG{}nY^ehK1"q#rG O,Rn1A_Cy%t]V=Brv7h writes: > Hans de Graaff writes: > > > I agree with Hrvoje that the latter behavior is evil. Could there not > > be some kind of time-out mechanism which would abort a regexp after a > > given period of time and cause a regexp error which could be trapped? > > Hm. Sounds too complicated, I think. "Too complicated" is not a problem for brave ones. "It would not work" is, however. I don't think timeouts would work while you're in the regexp code. XEmacs has `add-async-timeout', but I don't think it's healthy to signal errors from its callbacks.