[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Concurrency, again
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: Concurrency, again |
Date: |
Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:43:14 -0400 |
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> > Are such bugs why the "concurrency" branch is not ready?
> We don't really know, because the branch was never seriously used.
We could do something about that. Can we modify them so that
you need to set a variable or you get the current default
behavior? Then it could be merged in, and people could try it.
> That's what the branch does: if a Lisp program doesn't create any
> threads, it will run normally, as in today's Emacs, using a single
> main thread.
Maybe the flag (or flags) could control whether these applications
create threads.
--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.
- Re: Concurrency, again, (continued)
- Re: Concurrency, again, Stefan Monnier, 2016/10/13
- Re: Concurrency, again, John Wiegley, 2016/10/13
- Re: Concurrency, again, Stefan Monnier, 2016/10/13
- Re: Concurrency, again, Richard Stallman, 2016/10/14
- Re: Concurrency, again, Stefan Monnier, 2016/10/14
- Re: Concurrency, again, John Wiegley, 2016/10/14
- Re: Concurrency, again, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/10/15
- Re: Concurrency, again, Richard Stallman, 2016/10/15
- Re: Concurrency, again, John Wiegley, 2016/10/15
- Re: Concurrency, again, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/10/16
- Re: Concurrency, again,
Richard Stallman <=
- Re: Concurrency, again, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/10/17
- Re: Concurrency, again, Philipp Stephani, 2016/10/25
- Re: Concurrency, again, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/10/25
- Re: Concurrency, again, Clément Pit--Claudel, 2016/10/13
- Re: Concurrency, again, John Wiegley, 2016/10/13
- Re: Concurrency, again, Ted Zlatanov, 2016/10/14
- Re: Concurrency, again, Michael Albinus, 2016/10/14
- Re: Concurrency, again, John Wiegley, 2016/10/14
- Re: Concurrency, again, John Wiegley, 2016/10/14
- Re: Concurrency, again, Ted Zlatanov, 2016/10/14