Stefan Monnier <monn...@iro.umontreal.ca> writes: > I don't think we'd have any locking, instead you'd have to be careful > not to touch the buffer until insert-file-contents is over. > But you could add a `busy' buffer-local variable and use it as a lock if > you feel like it.
Likely, the buffer shall be read-only while the other thread runs. And maybe we shall add a more instructive warning when somebody tries to modify the buffer that time. All this could be wrapped by something like insert-file-contents-asynchronically. > Also to inform other code that insert-file-contents is done, you can > simply use a `done' variable which you set to t when it's done, so the > other code can check when it's over. But a more likely way to work is > to put the "things to do when the insert-file-contents is done" in the > second "..." of my sample code. I see. Well, you're right, this makes more sense than extending a file name handler for insert-file-contents. Thanks. > Stefan Best regards, Michael. _______________________________________________ Tramp-devel mailing list Tramp-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tramp-devel
