From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [RFC] Gnus generalized search, part II Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 18:17:47 +0300 Message-ID: <8337d0qxno.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87zif930mt.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87tw5hjnzr.fsf@hanan> <87mvb92er2.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <83efwkrhj1.fsf@gnu.org> <87inlw32ga.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1492874233 1030 195.159.176.226 (22 Apr 2017 15:17:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 15:17:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eric Abrahamsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Apr 22 17:17:07 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d1wmY-00006g-2s for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 17:17:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35936 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d1wmd-0006Fk-OK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 11:17:11 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34110) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d1wmX-0006Fc-Qv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 11:17:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d1wmU-0005dX-Og for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 11:17:05 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:51375) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d1wmU-0005dT-Le; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 11:17:02 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4098 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1d1wmU-00045O-0u; Sat, 22 Apr 2017 11:17:02 -0400 In-reply-to: <87inlw32ga.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> (message from Eric Abrahamsen on Sat, 22 Apr 2017 08:08:05 -0700) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:214215 Archived-At: > From: Eric Abrahamsen > Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 08:08:05 -0700 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> From: Eric Abrahamsen > >> Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 22:27:45 -0700 > >> > >> I don't know how threads interact with C-g. > > > > How would you want threads to interact with C-g? > > I'm still trying to get a correct mental model of how all this is > working. I assume that, if I gather the threads using: > > (mapc #'thread-join threads) > > None of the threads ever become the "current thread", and so C-g would > only ever signal quit to the main thread. So maybe instead of mapc, we > do: > > (dolist (t threads) > (condition-case nil > (thread-join t) > (quit (thread-signal t 'quit)))) > > According to my (limited, untested) understanding, that ought to do the > right thing. But what _is_ the right thing? I asked the question because I really would like to know what would you want/expect to be the effect of C-g on the active threads? It's not a rhetoric question. Can you please humor me? > Is (accept-process-output 0) the same as (accept-process-output > nil)? Yes.