>>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii writes: Eli> But thread-signal is not for causing an error in a thread, it is for Eli> unblocking a thread that waits on a mutex or a condvar. So why would Eli> you use it when the thread is not blocked? >> >> Then I think documentation for that function should be changed to >> explicitly say that the signal will *only* be delivered if the target >> thread is in a "blocked call to ‘mutex-lock’, ‘condition-wait’, or >> ‘thread-join’". >> >> Currently, the docstring of thread-signal just says that the function >> will interrupt threads which are blocked, but does not actually say that >> the signal will be delivered only in those cases. In fact, it says that >> it works like signal, so I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that >> it will just interrupt a thread whatever it's doing. Eli> The function does work like a signal, but Emacs cannot be interrupted Eli> while it waits for input. In all other cases your signal will be Eli> delivered, and if unhandled, it will terminate the thread. Eli> If we decide that thread-signal will have no effect while a thread Eli> waits for input, then we will document that, of course. My question Eli> was meant to understand your intent for signaling a thread at Eli> arbitrary time, because the effect of that is unpredictable, even if Eli> the crash didn't happen. I wanted to understand your thinking and Eli> rationale, so as to have a better basis for the decision of how to fix Eli> this problem. Eli> So could you please elaborate on your rationale? Actually there is no deeper reason behind it. I was just testing threads in Emacs, seeing how things behave. I certainly would think twice before writing code that interrupts a thread at an arbitrary point in a real program. When it comes to sit-for, I use it sometimes. Is there a reason not to use it in threads? In any case, I'm not encouraging anyone to program like that, I'm just reporting a crash... -- Michał Krzywkowski PGP: A5A7 06C4 28EF 8F64 2868 13A1 7BDE C129 F0B8 09A1