> A very quick simple > test shows the behaviour seems consistent if the function run by the timer > cancels the timer, when the function is run later due to buffering up of > timers, in the scenario you describe. > > I can't understand those words at all.
I think Martin was asking what would happen if the function run by a repeating timer cancelled the same timer, in the case where the repeating timer is delayed more than REPEAT*2 seconds due to a popup or something. I was trying to explain that it does not result in the timer being triggered more (or less) than the case where the timer that runs the function is not delayed; the timer cancellation behaviour is consistent between the two cases. My take on the current timer behaviour is that if you ask it to repeat every R seconds, then the timer will typically run N times in the period N*R, if N is large enough. However, Emacs cannot guarantee that the delay between timer n and timer n+1 is always at least R seconds (though it can guarantee that timer n will not run before n*R seconds). An alternative behaviour (which I think Martin was alluding to) is to not guarantee that the timer will run N times in the period N*R, but instead guarantee that the delay between timer n and timer n+1 is always at least R seconds. I'm not arguing that the current behaviour is wrong, but I could argue that the name REPEAT for the delay arg implies the latter behaviour is implemented. _______________________________________________ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
