From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/12848 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Harald Meland Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Idleness Date: 17 Nov 1997 23:40:26 +0100 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035152313 6007 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 22:18:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 22:18:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ding@ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Received: from xemacs.org (xemacs.cs.uiuc.edu [128.174.252.16]) by altair.xemacs.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA16856 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 16:00:21 -0800 Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA05055 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 18:00:46 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from pat.uio.no (6089@pat.uio.no [129.240.130.16]) by ifi.uio.no (8.8.7/8.8.7/ifi0.2) with SMTP id XAA25379 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 23:40:33 +0100 (MET) Original-Received: from octarine.uio.no (actually octarine.uio.no [129.240.186.25]) by pat.uio.no with SMTP (PP); Mon, 17 Nov 1997 23:40:27 +0100 Original-Received: by octarine.uio.no ; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 23:40:26 +0100 (MET) Original-To: Hrvoje Niksic In-Reply-To: Hrvoje Niksic's message of "17 Nov 1997 22:41:43 +0100" Original-Lines: 39 X-Mailer: Quassia Gnus v0.13/Emacs 20.2 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:12848 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:12848 [Hrvoje Niksic] | I see the difference now; thanks for the explanation. But I must be | still missing something, because I don't yet understand why Gnus needs | the hack. The FSFmacs `run-with-idle-timer' should behave as desired | when the REPEAT argument is nil: | | run-with-idle-timer is an interactive autoloaded Lisp function in `timer'. | | Perform an action the next time Emacs is idle for SECS seconds. | If REPEAT is non-nil, do this each time Emacs is idle for SECS seconds. Read the documentation carefully. I did earlier today, and discovered that a non-nil REPEAT means that * the function will get run every time Emacs has gone from a non-idle state and remained in an idle state for SECS seconds, whereas a nil REPEAT would imply that * the function is only called the very first time that Emacs goes from non-idle and stays idle for SECS seconds (i.e. the actual timer could very well be removed as soon as the function has been called (In fact, that may be the way it does work -- I haven't checked)). That being said, if you think that * adding a repeating non-idle timer from the idle-timer function, and * making sure the repeating non-idle timer gets removed as soon as Emacs becomes un-idle again isn't a hack -- well, then we obviously have a different view of what kind of code would make a hack :) -- Harald