> 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.