On 01/03/2016 07:46 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Daniel Colascione >> 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.