From xemacs-m  Thu Jan 23 11:02:52 1997
Received: from crystal.WonderWorks.COM (crystal.WonderWorks.com [192.203.206.1])
          by xemacs.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP
	  id LAA15647 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 11:02:51 -0600 (CST)
Received: by crystal.WonderWorks.COM 
	id QQbztk06098; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:02:51 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:02:51 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <QQbztk06098.199701231702@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
From: "Worry F. Wart" <kyle_jones@wonderworks.com>
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: Sort of a bug in Fsit-for and Fsleep-for
In-Reply-To: <kigohego1eh.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
References: <199701221635.RAA00914@sen2.ida.liu.se>
	<kigohego1eh.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>

 > > I would prefer to see Fsit_for and Fsleep_for terminate when they see
 > > a process event, but I don't know if anything obscure would break if
 > > they did. Another possibility (that I don't beleive in) would be to
 > 
 > It doesn't look dangerous for Fsit_for and Fsleep_for to
 > terminate on a process event.  Why don't you make the change,
 > and see what happens to your XEmacs environment?  I think a
 > breakage in that area would be pretty obvious.

Be careful.  The documented behavior of sit-for is to sleep until
the time expires or _user_ input is available.  It is late in the
beta cycle to be changing the semantics of a Lisp function like
this.  The bug needs to be fixed, but we should avoid changing
semantics if possible.

