On 01/04/2016 12:32 PM, John Wiegley wrote:
> OK, I've heard the concerns and input from all parties, and my decision is
> that we will include the stack overflow recovery logic, as it is now
> implemented, while keeping our ears open for any problems this causes to
> users.
> 
> Daniel, Eli, Paul, thank you for spending the time to be vocal and deliberate
> in enumerating your concerns. To Daniel specifically: I appreciate your
> experience in this area, and that you are not speaking from your imagination,
> but I'd like to give the current recovery approach a try before calling it a
> non-starter, or branching out into more complex solutions.
> 
> We *will* have the freedom to reverse this decision in a future release if
> things become worse rather than better. But there is no more benefit in
> debating this future.

Thanks for considering the issue. I still think this decision does not
bode well at all for Emacs robustness, and I'm terribly disappointed.