Re: while-no-input

[Stefan Monnier]

> The only thing programs do to control quitting is to bind inhibit-quit
> on and off.  That is not relevant to handling with-no-input, so I think

Could you substantiate that claim?
AFAIK inhibit-quit is used to get more-or-less-atomic behavior in places
where it matters.  while-no-input should very clearly obey inhibit-quit
since it also causes non-local exits at places where it can't be predited
(just like quit).
Don't forget that the code within while-no-input is usually code that was
not specifically designed for while-no-input (otherwise it would already use
input-pending-p instead).

Here is another way to say the ame thing: of all the non-local exits we have
right now, `quit' is the only one that's asynchronous.  `while-no-input'
introduces another form of asynchronous signalling and is thus much more
like `quit' than like `throw'.


        Stefan