hniksic at xemacs.org
Fri Feb 6 03:56:10 EST 2004
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> writes:
>>>>>> "Klaus" == Klaus Berndl <klaus.berndl at sdm.de> writes:
> Klaus> So: Why not moving the libs timer.el and thingatpt.el to
> Klaus> another XEmacs-package?
> I agree about timer.el; APIs like run-at-time are going to be
> developed over and over if we don't provide them.
But there is a problem. The last sentence of run-at-time's docstring
This function returns a timer object which you can use in
This means that run-at-time is not standalone. It requires at least
cancel-timer. And if we have cancel-timer, people will expect the
rest of the timer functionality, which brings us back to fsf-compat
How about creating a function similar to `run-at-time' that works
natively with itimers and returns an itimer? We should, of course,
call it something other than `run-at-time', lest we confuse people.
More information about the XEmacs-Beta