fvogt added a comment.
In D21607#474763 <https://phabricator.kde.org/D21607#474763>, @bruns wrote: > This would emit the signal more often, but wouldn't > > if (!matchChangeTimer.isActive()) > matchChangeTimer.start(100) > > > achieve essentially the same? That would do it even more often. I'm thinking about doing it completely differently now though, with a 0 latency case (untested): if(lastMatchChangeSignalled.hasExpired(100)) { matchChangeTimer.stop(); emit q->matchesChanged(context.matches()); } else { matchChangeTimer.start(100 - lastMatchChangeSignalled.expired()); } What do you think? REPOSITORY R308 KRunner REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D21607 To: fvogt, #frameworks, broulik Cc: bruns, kde-frameworks-devel, LeGast00n, michaelh, ngraham