From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Martin Stjernholm Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: What's the problem? (Was: Are there plans for a multi-threaded Emacs?) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 01:44:36 +0100 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <5b7k1227bf.fsf@lister.roxen.com> References: <4nllpt3hr3.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> <5bad69zd43.fsf@lister.roxen.com> <4noeuon378.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> <4ny8tsgxy6.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> <4nhe0ggv0u.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> <4nk75bwjaf.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> <4nsmjv8d32.fsf@collins.bwh.harvard.edu> <4nu14b6q33.fsf@collins.bwh.harvard.edu> <4nvfop6bay.fsf@collins.bwh.harvard.edu> , David Kastrup , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 12 01:51:21 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AUbWb-0003FN-00 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 01:51:21 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AUbWb-0004NU-00 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 01:51:21 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AUcP5-0006Eg-Bs for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:47:39 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AUcOg-00068B-Rb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:47:14 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AUcO9-00057C-Dh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:47:12 -0500 Original-Received: from [194.52.182.190] (helo=mail.roxen.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AUcNd-0004cs-2G; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:46:09 -0500 Original-Received: by mail.roxen.com (Postfix, from userid 52) id E27709A0C; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 01:44:41 +0100 (MET) Original-Received: from lister.roxen.com (lister.roxen.com [194.52.182.147]) by mail.roxen.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0A999A0B; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 01:44:35 +0100 (MET) Original-Received: from mast by lister.roxen.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1AUbQ4-0007BM-00; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 01:44:36 +0100 Original-To: Stefan Monnier In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "09 Dec 2003 21:49:48 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090016 (Oort Gnus v0.16) Emacs/20.7 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:18651 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:18651 Stefan Monnier wrote: > Yes, the semantics would be cleaner, but check the example I posted where > we rebind default-directory and switch back&forth between buffers: the > old semantics is odd but some code relies on it (basically using `let' > instead of `cd'). It sure is odd, but how is that semantics a problem when it comes to thread switches? From a usability perspective it sure can be a problem if several threads changes buffer local values and combine it with dynamic bindings, but that's an application problem. I can't see any inherent design problem keeping the odd behavior in a threaded environment. Is it that the implementation of dynamically bound buffer local values makes it difficult to fix context switching for them?