Re: unwind-protect within while-no-input

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 09/05/2024 16:07, Spencer Baugh wrote:
> > The correct solution to these problems is to document the requirements
> > of your function from the callers, and let the callers deal with that
> > according to their needs.  (I suspect that in the case that bothers
> > you, you yourself are that caller, which makes it easier to implement
> > such protocols.)
> >
> > Btw, you never explained why you are bothered specifically by
> > while-no-input.  Nor did you describe the problem.
> I'm writing a completion-at-point-function and completion table.  This
> table internally uses asynchronous subprocesses to get completions.
>
> This completion-at-point-function and table may be called by the popular
> completion frontend corfu-mode.  corfu-mode uses while-no-input around
> calls to completion tables.
>
> I want to ensure that my asynchronous subprocesses are deleted even if
> my code is interrupted by corfu's while-no-input.
>
> I can't change the protocol of completion tables or
> completion-at-point-functions (that's defined by Emacs), and I'm not the
> one calling while-no-input (that's corfu-mode).

And for some extra context: one of the questions at this point is 
whether company-mode should also use while-no-input around completion 
table queries (for better responsiveness, naturally), or at least 
provide an opt-in way to do so.

I wasn't sure there is a safe way to implement completion tables inside 
such amended protocol (this is finicky stuff, after all), and suggested 
Spencer asks on the mailing list.

The question is specifically about while-no-input, though I suppose any 
good solution for it should be safe against C-g too.