[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Concurrency, again
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Concurrency, again |
Date: |
Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:10:40 +0300 |
> From: Richard Stallman <address@hidden>
> CC: address@hidden, address@hidden
> Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:43:14 -0400
>
> > > 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.
That could probably be done, but it still needs someone motivated
enough to work on that. Volunteers are welcome.
- Re: Concurrency, again, (continued)
- 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, 2016/10/16
- Re: Concurrency, again,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- 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
- Re: Concurrency, again, Michael Albinus, 2016/10/15