From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Questions about throw-on-input Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 14:55:44 -0400 Message-ID: References: <9cf74f8f-b337-ca7d-90fe-259899ac478a@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="121806"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: casouri@gmail.com, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, p.stephani2@gmail.com, yyoncho@gmail.com, arthur.miller@live.com, eliz@gnu.org, drew.adams@oracle.com To: Alexander Miller Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri May 15 20:56:42 2020 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 1jZfVi-000Vbj-AE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 15 May 2020 20:56:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58390 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jZfVh-0008CT-Bb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 15 May 2020 14:56:41 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55146) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jZfUr-0007iS-M0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 15 May 2020 14:55:49 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:21222) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jZfUq-0000sd-N0; Fri, 15 May 2020 14:55:49 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3440A440293; Fri, 15 May 2020 14:55:47 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 01ED044028D; Fri, 15 May 2020 14:55:46 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1589568946; bh=tbA+2br5+HWx+sy+d8md9xyLbEY8IdZoYnL5XgCDDjc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=jcUn+ihoJqsNQdTYditXEMmJB6lJ8aMyvEpWDl5+lM9c1k63DP/yYbqHlqd7jhUYT YNnDm3gJv6u+Jl2MvH5OT2y6r3PTJr4Fm8DU958PBdHIQm5YdD5dwqD1PTVsxfsxYu VZ8R0lZtxLE0my0MeiKQFE/0fIXnVxCVuvQ1U5CVTA8Szh8eGi0G5c9b5NRpoyeaYo 9f04TadFd8v5PKSv23E2vGAnigt0G5D7FWU5J5w8qZ+Mq0g/strGvXkLa0qzh4h7gl RRb2DG4FTH5Yl11dfY8x7Qk21yufwcCk7iscLszSIndoQ5kO7+RZnzfWochEHHeJrn DCxzQnSpQzdMg== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [216.154.3.202]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 89B781202C1; Fri, 15 May 2020 14:55:45 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <9cf74f8f-b337-ca7d-90fe-259899ac478a@web.de> (Alexander Miller's message of "Fri, 15 May 2020 20:44:04 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/05/15 10:04:01 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:250414 Archived-At: > I think every one's been talking about sharing data so far, but what > about the other part of the equation 'shared + mutable state = Bad'? Do > you think it would be feasible to remove mutability by giving side > threads only read-only access to all that global shared data? Just restricting side threads to read-only access is not sufficient: the "main thread" also can't mutate that read-only data (or at least not while the side threads can read it) otherwise we're back to "bad". I like immutability, tho. And there's no doubt that it would have to be part of the solution if we want to allow sharing. Stefan