On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 2:18 PM Elijah Gabe Pérez wrote: > Ship Mints writes: > > I think the term duration is better than length when describing time > intervals. > > I agree. > > > I still prefer the unwind-protected sit-for method that guarantees the > remaps are removed to the one with > > the timer where I've experienced errors intervening with a race > condition creating new cookies that are > > not removed. Try mashing C-g with your timer implementation and you'll > see it. > > The problem with using sit-for is that it delays the message displayed > (usually "Quit") until timer stops (or if there is an input), it look > like Emacs froze. > At 0.05 seconds, that's not likely. Anyway, it changed it for use sit-for instead. > Cool. You wrapped it with unwind-protect, yes? > Is a new face really necessary just to implement a flash? The > implementation I proposed > > allows the user to specify any face attributes to define what they want > for a flash. I wouldn't use this > > feature without it being more reliable and flexible. > > I think that adding a new face for this would be better, it makes custom > themes set it and change it dynamically; of course, the user can change > face attributes freely. > As long as the implementation accepts a list of faces to flash as mine does, that sounds good. I'd just ignore the new face in my use.