From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/12844
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: Idleness
Date: 17 Nov 1997 19:37:26 +0100
Message-ID: <kiglnynbc49.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
References: <kig4t5dpp6k.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> <d6d4t5bsfhb.fsf@octarine.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035152310 5996 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 22:18:30 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 22:18:30 +0000 (UTC)
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 LAA10626
	for <steve@altair.xemacs.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:49:54 -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 NAA01005
	for <steve@xemacs.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:50:04 -0600 (CST)
Original-Received: from jagor.srce.hr (hniksic@jagor.srce.hr [161.53.2.130])
	by ifi.uio.no (8.8.7/8.8.7/ifi0.2) with ESMTP id TAA05170
	for <ding@ifi.uio.no>; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 19:37:44 +0100 (MET)
Original-Received: (from hniksic@localhost)
	by jagor.srce.hr (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA15131;
	Mon, 17 Nov 1997 19:37:26 +0100 (MET)
Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no
X-Attribution: Hrvoje
X-Face: Mie8:rOV<\c/~z{s.X4A{!?vY7{drJ([U]0O=W/<W*SMo/Mv:58:*_y~ki>xDi&N7XG
        KV^$k0m3Oe/)'e%3=$PCR&3ITUXH,cK>]bci&<qQ>Ff%x_>1`T(+M2Gg/fgndU%k*ft
        [(7._6e0n-V%|%'[c|q:;}td$#INd+;?!-V=c8Pqf}3J
In-Reply-To: Harald Meland's message of "17 Nov 1997 16:32:48 +0100"
Original-Lines: 30
X-Mailer: Quassia Gnus v0.12/XEmacs 20.3(beta94) - "Madrid"
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:12844
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:12844

Harald Meland <Harald.Meland@usit.uio.no> writes:

> | Why use these hacks, instead of the standard XEmacs IS-IDLE argument
> | to `start-itimer', or FSFmacs `run-with-idle-timer'?  Not that the
> | above hack doesn't work, but I just don't see the point...
> | 
> | Is it a compatibility thing?
> 
> No, I guess it has to do with the gnus-demon functionality of running
> a function every N minutes _after_ emacs has been idle for X minutes.
> `run-with-idle-timer' will only let you run a function every time
> Emacs has been idle for SECS seconds, so using this would merely move
> the hacking elsewhere, not remove it.

I don't see the difference between running a function every N seconds
_after_ Emacs has been idle, and running a function every time Emacs
has been idle for N seconds.  Could you please explain it to me?

> I don't know if the way XEmacs provides idle timers would make the
> removal of the hack easy.

XEmacs itimers provide a different interface to the same
functionality.  Internally, it works by comparing current time to the
`last-input-time'.

-- 
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
"A Real Programmer's code can awe with its fiendish brilliance, even
as its crockishness appalls."