From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thien-Thi Nguyen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Are there plans for a multi-threaded Emacs? Date: 07 Dec 2003 11:58:20 -0500 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <87oevbes4h.fsf@emacswiki.org> <20031117040607.C6C5D79B72@server2.messagingengine.com> <877k19slxn.fsf@emptyhost.emptydomain.de> <87llpollxm.fsf@emptyhost.emptydomain.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1070816479 31366 80.91.224.253 (7 Dec 2003 17:01:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 17:01:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 07 18:01:10 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AT2HO-000373-00 for ; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 18:01:10 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AT2HO-0005y4-00 for ; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 18:01:10 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AT3DS-0002OZ-3B for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 13:01:10 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AT3Cf-0002Hb-R5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 13:00:21 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AT3C8-000205-8Q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 13:00:20 -0500 Original-Received: from [207.245.84.69] (helo=colo.agora-net.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.24) id 1AT3C8-000202-0t for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:59:48 -0500 Original-Received: from ttn by colo.agora-net.com with local (Exim 3.34 #1) id 1AT2Ee-0005yc-00; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 11:58:20 -0500 Original-To: Kai Grossjohann In-Reply-To: Kai Grossjohann's message of "Sun, 07 Dec 2003 14:52:37 +0000" Original-Lines: 21 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:18506 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:18506 Kai Grossjohann writes: I see. Hm. I thought that people "just" need to be careful which "old code" they call. And if the old code doesn't work, it would get rewritten. that's the theory, but in practice even the most simple pieces of new code rely heavily on old code. generally, this methodology exposes the user to an indeterminate window where the extent and impact of the changes to be made are unknown. this may be acceptable but there is a danger that the unknown becomes the permanently unknowable if no one looks at it. this is the problem (by design) w/ usloth and their output, for example. But I guess the big-lock suggestion leads to bad performance in problematic cases, whereas my suggestion leads to wrong results in problematic cases. And bad performance is better than wrong results. that's a very succinct way to put it! thi