[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: sendmail.el bug or expected behavior?
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: sendmail.el bug or expected behavior? |
Date: |
Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:50:28 -0500 |
I think all of these cases can be detected, without negatively
affecting proper operation, by using start-process instead of
call-process with BUFFER=0.
I expect that would be slower in the usual case, and I don't want to
pay such a price.
The code would spawn the process, poll
the process for, e.g., 1 second, and if it is still running, continue.
(setq foo (start-process ...))
(sit-for 1)
A one-second delay is absolutely unacceptable.
If you can implement this method without any appreciable slowdown,
then I have no objection to switching to it.
- Re: sendmail.el bug or expected behavior?, (continued)
- Re: sendmail.el bug or expected behavior?, Richard Stallman, 2004/01/29
- Re: sendmail.el bug or expected behavior?, Richard Stallman, 2004/01/25
- Re: sendmail.el bug or expected behavior?, Richard Stallman, 2004/01/23
- Re: sendmail.el bug or expected behavior?, Eli Zaretskii, 2004/01/23
- Re: sendmail.el bug or expected behavior?, Simon Josefsson, 2004/01/23
- Re: sendmail.el bug or expected behavior?, Ian Jackson, 2004/01/26
- Re: sendmail.el bug or expected behavior?, Simon Josefsson, 2004/01/26
- Re: sendmail.el bug or expected behavior?, Stefan Monnier, 2004/01/26
- Re: sendmail.el bug or expected behavior?, Simon Josefsson, 2004/01/26
- Re: sendmail.el bug or expected behavior?, Stefan Monnier, 2004/01/26
- Re: sendmail.el bug or expected behavior?,
Richard Stallman <=
Re: sendmail.el bug or expected behavior?, Rob Browning, 2004/01/29
Re: sendmail.el bug or expected behavior?, Stefan Monnier, 2004/01/30
Re: sendmail.el bug or expected behavior?, Richard Stallman, 2004/01/31