Re: address@hidden: Re: pop3-read-response not robust in the presence of timers]

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

> That is an interesting question.  I think this user wants to invoke
> Gnus from a timer and wants it to switch buffers.  But perhaps it only
> needs to switch buffers in some windows; perhaps it would be ok to
> preserve the current buffer.
>
> However, accept-process-output is not the only function that allows
> timers to run.  So do read-event and read-key-sequence.  It would
> be unnatural for only accept-process-output to preserve the current
> buffer.  We would want to change them all.  That is somewhat more
> radical.  Still, it might be an improvement.

The ramifications for altering `read-event' and `read-key-sequence'
are a bit out of my scope, but I can't (at the moment) think of any
instances where it would be natural for the current buffer to be one
thing before they are called and another afterwards.

One could also approach this from the opposite side -- slapping (the
equivalent of) `save-buffer-excursion' around the timer functions
(and possibly also `after-change-functions' and all those other
functions that get run "asynchronously").

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   address@hidden * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen