From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Is it time to remove INTERNAL_FIELD? Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 18:07:20 +0300 Message-ID: <83vbgguw9j.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87lhhjuq26.fsf@gmail.com> <5538C48F.2020005@cs.ucla.edu> <87fv7rupcc.fsf@gmail.com> <5538C6C0.2000609@cs.ucla.edu> <83sibr15ac.fsf@gnu.org> <878udjun89.fsf@gmail.com> <83pp6v14cy.fsf@gnu.org> <87sibr84hb.fsf@gmail.com> <83oamf12ax.fsf@gnu.org> <87fv7rqcc7.fsf@gmail.com> <83lhhj10mb.fsf@gnu.org> <877ft0fpax.fsf@gmail.com> <83oamcxx99.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2x0xobm.fsf@gnu.org> <87d22oem75.fsf@gmail.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1430236168 14375 80.91.229.3 (28 Apr 2015 15:49:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 15:49:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eggert@cs.ucla.edu, monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Oleh Krehel Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 28 17:49:15 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Yn7l0-0004YS-8R for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 17:49:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34576 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yn7kz-0008LC-N6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:49:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42785) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yn76h-0001IA-8C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:07:32 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yn76d-0004Gk-MW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:07:31 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout26.012.net.il ([80.179.55.182]:57310) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yn76d-0004GZ-EZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:07:27 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout26.012.net.il by mtaout26.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NNI00400VCXJG00@mtaout26.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 18:09:03 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by mtaout26.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NNI00JVCVF3EN90@mtaout26.012.net.il>; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 18:09:03 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <87d22oem75.fsf@gmail.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 80.179.55.182 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:185967 Archived-At: > From: Oleh Krehel > Cc: Stefan Monnier , eggert@cs.ucla.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 09:39:10 +0200 > > > Unless the concurrency branch is officially and finally dead, I'd like > > to keep the underscores, to make it easier to revive that branch, if > > and when some volunteer emerges. > > I think that a good start towards concurrency is making the code as > simple as possible. Removing INTERNAL_FIELD is a tiny step towards that > goal. I'm not against removing INTERNAL_FIELD. I was only talking about keeping the code that appends the underscores to fields in buffer and keyboard structures where we were doing that with INTERNAL_FIELD. > Perhaps, removing some other abstraction mechanisms that don't actually > do anything yet (but potentially could be useful in the future) would > also be good. Concurrency would come with its own abstractions, I think > the old ones would just get in the way. We append the underscores not as some abstraction, but as an aid to catch early code that will interfere with merging the concurrency branch. > Should I update the patch to include the underscores everywhere? Not everywhere, only where the fields are used in BVAR and KVAR. Thanks.