I like the idea for a threshold, but it would be a ton of work since it would have to use threads and locking and vim isn't thread safe. This is way more work than I am willing to put in even if it means this patch doesn't get merged.
-Matt On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Anton Bobrov <[email protected]> wrote: > > You are correct that we trivially know this information. What would you > > suggest for the heuristic on not rescheduling? A timer that takes up > 500ms > > out of every 1000 is also something we'd want to kill. > > > > -Matt > > IMHO, any kind of bad plugin detection is useless. It's complicate, need > complex documentation and users will shoot their legs in any case. > > Timer running threshold solves 'do not kill good plugins' problem that > completely different from the above. > > -- > -- > You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. > Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. > For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "vim_dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/vim_dev/-4pqDJfHCsM/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
