Re: Nested sit-for's

[Kim F. Storm]

martin rudalics <address@hidden> writes:

>> If we simply document that "timers (and process filters) should avoid
>> using sit-for", it should be clear to the reader that rare exceptions
>> may exist (especially if we add a comment to jit-lock-stealth-fontify
>> stating this).  After the release, we can probably rework
>> jit-lock-stealth-fontify to avoid using sit-for, but I don't think the
>> current situation is bad enough to block the release.
>
> If you accept a pre-command-hook the attached patch would be a first
> step in that direction.

Is the pre-command-hook installed permanently, or only when jit-lock is
active?

IMHO, using a permanently installed pre-command-hook is not acceptable, but
it may be ok if only used temporarily...

But why is this needed at all?

-- 
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk