From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Concurrency via isolated process/thread Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2023 05:31:34 +0300 Message-ID: <83mt0bjdh5.fsf@gnu.org> References: <871qhnr4ty.fsf@localhost> <87pm57p57m.fsf@yahoo.com> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="17191"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: yantar92@posteo.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Po Lu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Jul 05 04:32:42 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qGsJu-0004J5-Eu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 05 Jul 2023 04:32:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qGsIu-0002ZM-EH; Tue, 04 Jul 2023 22:31:40 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qGsIt-0002Z4-9c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Jul 2023 22:31:39 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qGsIq-00046V-Op; Tue, 04 Jul 2023 22:31:39 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=/J+3BVvoQnJOYZY1wSHh9KU4us6SPmtgaxZtH1cbMRc=; b=CwVR1Ch9t5NQ 8G0+x7ngQV/KB+8EtQ3F9fsaf9Ha4yUk9gmmEgb6Ekdcj9rF/VF09plSdyO4AaI6j3QTb/ThRHSUj iYahsnivvqDCHOlTAetn9cwBrTcM2v9zS7xue6d1aKV8YBow9yi9NxMg64zwAdTwVuS0Hfpa1bB8R MFNW+2pL+BIqu55+r6BvsZv5VXFXuSw29f0kF10vwFRIv/XJYLcviksAhrFEI8vVX/uSdcjb/fpKx 2M11AvuMTATqBngUHPYdTOpsHER7vBiFUoTz0ns4ppPXv+G3piypFITTVeILw3s0thm7MZuFA0RkM ZBXg9J+u3Tu138XpS/rGTw==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qGsIq-0001D3-8p; Tue, 04 Jul 2023 22:31:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87pm57p57m.fsf@yahoo.com> (message from Po Lu on Wed, 05 Jul 2023 08:33:33 +0800) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:307449 Archived-At: > From: Po Lu > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2023 08:33:33 +0800 > > But anyway I have a sinking suspicion that any solution that involves > special IPC implemented in C code will prove to be more trouble than > allowing multiple Lisp threads to run simultaneously and interlocking > Emacs itself. No, because we already handle sub-process output in a way that doesn't require true concurrency.