On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 9:51 AM Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> > From: Ship Mints <shipmints@gmail.com>
> > Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2025 09:24:17 -0500
> > Cc: 75834@debbugs.gnu.org
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 9:23 AM Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> >  What exactly is the problem with using normal non-idle timers in both
> >  these cases?
> >
> > I prefer timers such as these not to run while I'm typing, even slowly,
> or otherwise navigating.
>
> If you type fast enough, they never will.
>
> > That's all. As I
> > said, if saveplace already had a regular timer in place, I'd just have
> used that even if I prefer idle. I could ask
> > you the same question. Why you prefer to be interrupted for these kinds
> of things vs. idleness, even with a
> > short after-idle interval.
>
> I prefer normal timers because their invocation frequency is more
> reliable than that of idle timers.  And reliability is important when
> we are talking about features that at least in some cases are intended
> to save the day if Emacs crashes.
>

Let's go with regular timers, then. I'll revise the saveplace patch and we
can retire the discussion about savehist idle timer.