On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 at 15:33, Michael Albinus <michael.albinus@gmx.de> wrote:

Hi Michael,

 

But that happens without threading as well. Or did you mean “all in their own frames”? That would indeed be terrible.

Since I'm already posting to the list, I just want to raise a point that I have been thinking about as I have been reading this discussion. Personally, I don't see why most (any?) commands needs C-x &. Most of the time, the user wouldn't know that a certain operation is going to take time and therefore needs C-x &. Someone else mentioned on this list that a better solution would be to simply open a new buffer, but letting its contents say “loading…” if it takes too long. The same could be the case for things like Gnus or any other long-running command.

Killing the buffer would kill the process, in case it's hung.

Perhaps I didn't understand the issues that were raised in this thread, but it wasn't clear to me why C-x & would ever be needed (or rather, why its absence would ever be needed).

 

It is a 15-bit machine with 48 kwords of memory. 2 of those kwords were RAM and the rest ROM. The CPU was 2 MHz, with a very cumbersome instruction set.

So yes, I'm pretty sure you could get some incarnation of Emacs running on it. :-)

Regards,

Elias