GNU bug report logs -
#78737
sit-for behavior changes when byte-compiled
Previous Next
Full log
Message #242 received at 78737 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On June 13, 2025 9:03:21 AM PDT, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
>> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
>> Cc: Daniel Colascione <dancol <at> dancol.org>, 78737 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Eli
>> Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
>> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 10:51:37 -0400
>>
>> > Making
>> >
>> > (while t (read-event))
>> >
>> > infloop without being able to quit is a bad idea. We shouldn't do it.
>>
>> I don't find this terribly problematic, If you think of what that loop
>> means it *is* a "please shoot me in the foot" kind of thing.
>>
>> I agree that not being able to escape is a problem, but it's not the
>> only way to get into such trouble. IOW I think it just gets us back to
>> the fact that we need an "emergency quit" for bugs (which `kill -USR2`
>> can sometimes provide, tho it's not a quit per-se).
>
>What I asked, and still didn't get an answer to, is at what point does
I believe I answered your question at length in <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnu-emacs/2025-06/msg00678.html> and specifically addressed the question above. I believe I'd addressed the subject several times before as well.
Could you please take a look at the proposal before declaring these questions unanswered?
>a program that calls read-event becomes interruptible by a single C-g,
>after the changes on the branch? The above loop is not interruptible,
>but Daniel says that his proposal allows interrupting Lisp programs,
>just not silly programs such as the one above. So if we start from
>the above silly program, and add to it some meaningful processing of
>the event read by read-event, at what point does such a program become
>interruptible by a single C-g?
>
>Later responses by Daniel seem to indicate that the answer is "never".
>It seems like his proposal is to change the behavior of C-g such that
>to interrupt a Lisp program the user will need two or more C-g presses
>(with the number customizable) during some predefine time interval.
>Is that understanding correct?
No, that is not correct, and I've said so many times. I'm not sure what I could say to increase clarity.
Outside contrived corner cases, the only difference users will notice is that quitting works more reliably.
This bug report was last modified 58 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.