GNU bug report logs - #24372
25.1.50; After losing focus, cursor is hidden when moving point

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Philipp Stephani <p.stephani2 <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 24372 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#24372: 25.1.50; After losing focus, cursor is hidden when moving point
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 11:25:11 +0300

> From: Philipp Stephani <p.stephani2 <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 19:09:52 +0000
> Cc: 24372 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
>  > How about a variant of this below? It uses a fixed limitation from
>  > below on the delay, but only for the first blink. (The value 0.2 was
>  > found by experimentation, not sure if we need to add yet another
>  > defcustom for that.)
>  >
>  > I don't think we should introduce magic numbers or further customization options.
> 
>  It solves the problem, doesn't it? I don't mind very much if it were
>  a defcustom, I just think no one would want to change it.
> 
> OK, then it would be great to document the new behavior in the documentation of `blink-cursor-delay' and also
> clarify what "starting to blink" means.

Done.

>  > > I've attached another patch with the change I have in mind.
>  >
>  > This has a disadvantage of creating a new timer object each time,
>  > which I think we'd like to avoid: too much consing. (Also, don't you
>  > need to set the timer variable to nil when the timer is disabled?)
>  >
>  > I don't understand - the patch doesn't create any additional timers, it only changes the initial delay of
>  the
>  > idle-timer.
> 
>  Each time blink-cursor--start-timer or blink-cursor--start-idle-timer
>  is called, they create a new timer, right? And your patch makes us
>  call these functions each time blinking is started or ended, right?
> 
> No, the other patch is that it restarts the timers when the customization options are set. Otherwise the options
> only become effective after a focus-out/focus-in event or something similar that restarts the cursor.
> 
>  > My patch is identical, except is uses blink-cursor-interval as lower bound.
> 
>  Of course. That's why I said it's a minor variant.
> 
>  There's another difference, though: in my patch we only limit the
>  first argument to run-with-timer/run-with-idle-timer, not the second.
>  So only the first blink cycle is affected.
> 
> Doesn't that mean that the adjusted delay is applied only after the first command, but not after subsequent
> commands? 

No, not AFAIK.  The idle time starts anew after each command.

Is there anything left to do about this, or can we close this bug?

Thanks.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.