From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Patch for fields of `struct buffer' Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:02:30 -0500 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1296493710 15038 80.91.229.12 (31 Jan 2011 17:08:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 17:08:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Tom Tromey Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 31 18:08:25 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PjxEj-0008K3-3u for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 18:08:21 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46490 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PjxEh-0004RI-VL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:08:20 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=47652 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pjx97-0001gQ-FV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:02:34 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pjx96-0004vM-EB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:02:33 -0500 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.183]:21471 helo=ironport2-out.pppoe.ca) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pjx96-0004uz-B5; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:02:32 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEABR6Rk1MCpTp/2dsb2JhbACkeHS9RIVOBIUTj2g X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,404,1291611600"; d="scan'208";a="89957258" Original-Received: from 76-10-148-233.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO ceviche.home) ([76.10.148.233]) by ironport2-out.pppoe.ca with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 31 Jan 2011 12:02:31 -0500 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id B6E9E660DC; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:02:30 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Tom Tromey's message of "Mon, 31 Jan 2011 08:30:14 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.183 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:135321 Archived-At: > Another thing I realized I don't know is how thread-local let-bindings > ought to interact with lexbind. Good you mention, I was indeed just thinking that I had forgotten to mention that the concurrency patch should be designed with the assumption that all the code that natters can/will use lexical scoping (i.e. dynamic let bindings of variables that are not buffer-local and have no global value will be pretty much non-existent or not performance-relevant). > That is, if you make a closure, and then in the body of it you > let-bind one of its captured variables, is that let-binding > thread-local? Variables that are captured by a closure are (by definition) lexically scoped, so they should not be affected by buffer/thread/keyboard-localness which only applies to dynamically-scoped variables. Stefan