[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Concurrency, again
From: |
John Wiegley |
Subject: |
Re: Concurrency, again |
Date: |
Wed, 12 Oct 2016 11:01:35 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.130014 (Ma Gnus v0.14) Emacs/25.1.50 (darwin) |
>>>>> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> I urge you to have a look at the sources on the concurrency branch. There's
> no threading, in the usual sense of that word: at any given time, only a
> single thread is running. It's not at all what you seem to be imagining.
> Think about idle timers that run without your having to do anything to start
> them: that's what we have there, in a nutshell, plus a few niceties.
More akin to green threading then?
Your point about it not affecting modules that don't opt-in is well taken.
lexical-binding was introduced as major change, but didn't affect any old code
because it had to be enabled explicitly. This allowed us to gradually phase in
its use over several years. If something like that could be done for
threading, some of my fears would be alleviated.
I'd also like to point out a thread that occurred on reddit recently,
attempting to widen this discussion:
https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/comments/56q8ih/john_wiegley_id_much_rather_we_reexamine_the/
It's interesting to note how many people agree with caution, or don't claim to
need threading, vs. those calling for its inclusion. I know many users who
don't want Emacs locking up on them. This is the problem that needs solving.
Is threading in Emacs Lisp the answer? I still don't know.
--
John Wiegley GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
http://newartisans.com 60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, (continued)
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, John Wiegley, 2016/10/07
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Toon Claes, 2016/10/09
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/10/09
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, John Wiegley, 2016/10/09
- Re: Concurrency, again (was: Emacs Lisp's future), Eli Zaretskii, 2016/10/10
- Re: Concurrency, again, Paul Eggert, 2016/10/10
- Re: Concurrency, again, Stefan Monnier, 2016/10/12
- Re: Concurrency, again, raman, 2016/10/12
- Re: Concurrency, again, John Wiegley, 2016/10/12
- Re: Concurrency, again, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/10/12
- Re: Concurrency, again,
John Wiegley <=
- Re: Concurrency, again, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/10/12
- Re: Concurrency, again, Stefan Monnier, 2016/10/12
- Re: Concurrency, again, Perry E. Metzger, 2016/10/12
- Re: Concurrency, again, Søren Pilgård, 2016/10/12
- Re: Concurrency, again, Perry E. Metzger, 2016/10/12
- Re: Concurrency, again, Stefan Monnier, 2016/10/12
- Re: Concurrency, again, John Wiegley, 2016/10/12
- Re: Concurrency, again, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/10/13
- Re: Concurrency, again, Perry E. Metzger, 2016/10/13
- Re: Concurrency, again, Stefan Monnier, 2016/10/13