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: Thu, 06 Jul 2023 18:18:53 +0300 Message-ID: <83pm55gjaa.fsf@gnu.org> References: <871qhnr4ty.fsf@localhost> <83v8ezk3cj.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8ezpov0.fsf@localhost> <83r0pnk2az.fsf@gnu.org> <87pm57pns8.fsf@localhost> <87lefvp55t.fsf@yahoo.com> <87sfa28ura.fsf@localhost> <87cz16o8vz.fsf@yahoo.com> <87jzve8r4m.fsf@localhost> <871qhmo5nv.fsf@yahoo.com> <87bkgq8p5t.fsf@localhost> <87leftnat6.fsf@yahoo.com> <87fs6171uj.fsf@localhost> <83zg49gmgl.fsf@gnu.org> <87ttuhxejx.fsf@localhost> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="645"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: luangruo@yahoo.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Ihor Radchenko Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 06 17:19:24 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 1qHQlQ-000AT7-2o for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 17:19:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qHQkw-0002G8-Hf; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 11:18:54 -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 1qHQkv-0002Fy-Hb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 11:18:53 -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 1qHQkv-00051C-7k; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 11:18:53 -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=5+ZG7Tw6ACHhyzg4+bM9ULc6lJ05+F5Q2/bmPqQXj5g=; b=HmJLdQOMWXNy VzFt6lBjYcDXp+g5tFs/9i5kKzcR5O9VwOkClcBa+v9KvCib+/Ee11nGw8wfywkion6/FU/LHXuLS 5ArFsgtXN1XcPVz5ygV1GrFi3y74pPfPXI7AErWj4RgyrvylwLFS3mYFe9hj2wOxuQtUAZHv1e2Tq qyX7WgLuZ+0+27r/a1J9CoxUhrCXXTWqe+N9gCV+gQw3DEAGsyPMEXgNwZhso7CX8rIjaaUyw7zGd 1oGONbgK39IDhMc4PVPQWD/Yvn1uPMMOFIr77GWV5AUjlpCPDK2cZtuAZ8epD7EkQtD9A8Q9LwJrO BgVwLmYMG+qXqhIYr41ZjQ==; 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 1qHQku-0004GH-NT; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 11:18:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87ttuhxejx.fsf@localhost> (message from Ihor Radchenko on Thu, 06 Jul 2023 15:09:06 +0000) 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:307515 Archived-At: > From: Ihor Radchenko > Cc: luangruo@yahoo.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2023 15:09:06 +0000 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> Do you mean that binary communication is already possible? If so, is it > >> documented somewhere? > > > > What is the difference between binary and text in this context, in > > your interpretation? > > AFAIK, process communication is now implemented using buffers that, even > in the absence of coding system, index the data stream into byte array. Yes, but isn't binary data also a stream of bytes? > I am not sure if it is something that can be directly fed to memcpy (thus > avoiding too much of extra cost for passing Lisp data around). If you don't want the incoming data to be inserted into a buffer or produce a string from it, then what do you want to do with it instead? To use something in Emacs, we _must_ make some Lisp object out of it, right? > > (I'm surprised to hear they are perceived as > > different by someone who comes from Posix background, not MS-Windows > > background.) > > I was looking at this from C perspective. There's no difference there as well.