GNU bug report logs - #75834
[PATCH] Add missing custom :set to savehist-autosave-interval

Previous Next

Full log

Message #38 received at 75834 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Ship Mints <shipmints <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 75834 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#75834: [PATCH] Add missing custom :set to
 savehist-autosave-interval
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2025 17:29:51 +0200

> From: Ship Mints <shipmints <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2025 09:52:23 -0500
> Cc: 75834 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 9:51 AM Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
> 
>  > From: Ship Mints <shipmints <at> gmail.com>
>  > Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2025 09:24:17 -0500
>  > Cc: 75834 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>  > 
>  > On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 9:23 AM Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> 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. 

Thank you.

Previous Next

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