[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Dynamic modules: MODULE_HANDLE_SIGNALS etc.

From: Daniel Colascione
Subject: Re: Dynamic modules: MODULE_HANDLE_SIGNALS etc.
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 07:49:44 -0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0

On 01/03/2016 07:46 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Daniel Colascione <address@hidden>
>> Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 06:27:34 -0800
>>> Would someone be willing to summarize where we're at at this point with this
>>> discussion? It has been long and large enough that I'm no longer clear on
>>> exactly what it is that we do and don't want, and why. Just a summary of our
>>> major alternatives at this point, and the most significant points for and
>>> against each would be great.
>> [...]
>> Eli and Paul believe that "Emacs should never crash", and that
>> potentially saving user data is worth the risk of undefined behavior,
>> which they contend does not occur in practice.
>> They are wrong. This code is terrible and that we should delete it
>> immediately. The code is fundamentally flawed and cannot be made to work
>> properly on any platform. No other program attempts to recover from
>> stack overflow this way. (I surveyed a few in a previous messages.)
> This is not a summary, this is propaganda.  If you cannot summarize an
> issue objectively, please don't summarize at all.  I deliberately
> avoided replying for fear of being too involved to write an objective
> summary.  I wish you exercised the same self-restraint.
> John, please disregard this "summary".

Nice trick, shutting down discussion so that the code stays by default.
I see nothing wrong with advocacy.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]