RE: Revamping sit-for

[Drew Adams]

    > The doc string says, to me, that an existing call of (sit-for
    > 3 200), which previously simply waited 3.2 sec, with no
    > inhibition of display, will now be interpreted as a wait of
    > 3.0 sec, with inhibition of display. That's a
    > serious change in behavior.

      if (NILP (nodisp) && !NUMBERP (milliseconds))
        { /* New style.  */ nodisp = milliseconds;
          milliseconds = Qnil;}

    However, since the old form has been obsolete for a long time, and can
    cause confusion (as demonstrated), it might be good to simply drop it.

My argument, from the beginning, has been based on what "the doc string
says". You've already stated previously that the code does what you indicate
above. Your doc string, however, says something entirely different - it
suggests that existing code will not work, for the reasons I indicated.

There appear to be three possible issues at stake here:
1. Whether your change is a good one.
2. Whether it should be made now.
3. Whether the doc string accurately describes the change.

Others have spoken mainly to #2 (no). My point was that either the doc
string is inaccurate (#3) or the change is a bad one (#1). Your argument
supports #3: your doc string is inaccurate.