Subject: bug#15042: 24.3.50; while-no-input and input-pending-p

From: Michael Heerdegen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 22:48:15 +0200

Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]> writes:

> > 1.  `input-pending-p' can (and does) return t in cases were no input is
> > pending (see the doc).  In such cases, `while-no-input' just returns t,
> > although no input was given.  This contradicts the doc, is not useful
> > and the behavior is unforeseeable.
>
> Those cases where it immediately returns t should hopefully be very
> similar to those cases where it stops in the middle even tho the event
> that interrupted it is "ignorable".

Sure? (What are such "ignorable" events?)  That would mean that binding
`throw-on-input' also "fires" in cases where no input arrived.

Is there an alternative to cancel a calculation on input without "false
positives"?

> > With the current implementation, I have to `discard-input' if I don't
> > want this.
>
> Can you give an example where you'd want to do that?

Actually, no.  This was hypothetical, maybe unfounded.

Regards,

Michael.