Re: Preview: portable dumper

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> From: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
> Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:54:16 -0800
> 
> Daniel's proposed change consists of code that works and that runs fast. 

I don't think "works and is fast" are the only criteria for accepting
patches, or even the most important ones.

> Isn't that reality? And in contrast, isn't the lread-based approach 
> wishful thinking?

Maybe, maybe not.  I don't understand why we need to grasp the first
straw we see around to get rid of unexec.  What's the rush?

And let me remind you that you didn't like this same idea very much
when I proposed it 2 months ago, see the discussion that starts at

  http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnu-emacs/2016-09/msg00227.html

> from what I can see, the C pipeline is by no means empty.

Well, it somehow becomes all but empty on the other end.  Believe me.
And even if we cannot agree on that, the facts of what we see here are
very clear.

> The prospect of [C]s demise shouldn't materially affect our choice
> of Emacs dumping  technology in the meantime.

I think it would be a grave mistake not to be affected by that.  We
would be burying our heads in the sand if we don't.