Subject: Re: bug#78737: sit-for behavior changes when byte-compiled

From: Daniel Colascione <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 11:04:06 -0700

On June 12, 2025 9:56:26 AM PDT, Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 09:52:22 -0700
>> From: Daniel Colascione <[email-masked]>
>> CC: [email-masked], [email-masked]
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On June 12, 2025 9:32:26 AM PDT, Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> >> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 13:58:51 +0000
>> >> From: Pip Cet <[email-masked]>
>> >> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked]
>> >> 
>> >> I'd say breaking (read-event) called in a loop is bad enough, because
>> >> how else are you supposed to start developing code which uses it?
>> >
>> >Maybe this regression should be fixed, then.
>> 
>> It's not a regression. It's a bug fix. Not every behavior change is a problem. Who starts coding something by calling it in a loop? That's like learning to drive by crashing into a wall.
>
>Did it never happen to you that you wrote a loop and forgot the part
>that advances the counter or some other thing that will prevent an
>infloop?  Stuff happens when developing code.

And the mechanism I described just now addresses the problem of recovering from programmer error.