From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/12851
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Harald Meland <Harald.Meland@usit.uio.no>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: Idleness
Date: 18 Nov 1997 03:46:02 +0100
Message-ID: <d6dpvnyc42d.fsf@octarine.uio.no>
References: <kig4t5dpp6k.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> <d6d4t5bsfhb.fsf@octarine.uio.no> <kiglnynbc49.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> <x7hg9b70h7.fsf@peorth.gweep.net> <kigbtzj9p0o.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> <d6d90unqh45.fsf@octarine.uio.no> <kigyb2n6rze.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035152316 6033 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 22:18:36 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 22:18:36 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: ding@ifi.uio.no
Return-Path: <ding-request@ifi.uio.no>
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 TAA20474
	for <steve@altair.xemacs.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 19:58:59 -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 VAA06950
	for <steve@xemacs.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 21:59:23 -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 DAA14250
	for <ding@ifi.uio.no>; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 03:46:20 +0100 (MET)
Original-Received: from octarine.uio.no (actually octarine.uio.no [129.240.186.25]) 
          by pat.uio.no with SMTP (PP); Tue, 18 Nov 1997 03:46:04 +0100
Original-Received: by octarine.uio.no ; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 03:46:03 +0100 (MET)
Original-To: Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>
In-Reply-To: Hrvoje Niksic's message of "18 Nov 1997 00:05:57 +0100"
Original-Lines: 42
X-Mailer: Quassia Gnus v0.13/Emacs 20.2
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:12851
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:12851

[Hrvoje Niksic]

| I think that:
| 
| 	* adding a new idle timer from the idle-timer callback
| 
| is less of a hack.  I wonder if it would work correctly?

I just did some simple testing, and it doesn't look like it would.  As
I noted in my previous mail, it appears that Emacs needs to go from a
non-idle state and remain idle for SECS seconds before FUNCTION is
called.

If you add an idle timer from the present idle timer FUNCTION, the new
FUNCTION will not get called before Emacs goes non-idle and then idle
again.

Of course you could add a non-idle timer, but this would have to check
whether Emacs has become non-idle every time it get's called, and I
can't find any way of determining that -- short of the present hack in
Gnus, and then we're back to square one, right?


BTW, here's the code I used for my testing.  Note that it will
positively break if the SECS argument used in the callback is larger
than the SECS argument in the separate `run-with-idle-timer' call, as
that would imply removing the spurious timer before it gets called.

(defvar harald-test-idle-timer-mother-timer nil)
(defvar harald-test-idle-timer-spurious-timer nil)

(defun harald-test-idle-timer-function ()
  (when harald-test-idle-timer-spurious-timer
    (cancel-timer harald-test-idle-timer-spurious-timer))
  (setq harald-test-idle-timer-spurious-timer
	(run-with-idle-timer 2 t 'harald-test-idle-timer-function))
  (message (current-time-string)))

(setq harald-test-idle-timer-mother-timer
      (run-with-idle-timer 5 t 'harald-test-idle-timer-function))
-- 
Harald