From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tom Tromey Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Patch for fields of `struct buffer' Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 09:26:09 -0700 Message-ID: References: <4D46E75E.7080503@harpegolden.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1297182420 22557 80.91.229.12 (8 Feb 2011 16:27:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 16:27:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Helmut Eller Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 08 17:26:56 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 1PmqOU-0007IZ-Vf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 08 Feb 2011 17:26:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42056 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PmqOT-0005Wy-MH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 08 Feb 2011 11:26:21 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=40015 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PmqOM-0005No-9w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Feb 2011 11:26:15 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PmqOK-0007dy-RV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Feb 2011 11:26:14 -0500 Original-Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:3005) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PmqOK-0007du-EC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Feb 2011 11:26:12 -0500 Original-Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p18GQASk032122 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 8 Feb 2011 11:26:10 -0500 Original-Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p18GQANQ006074; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 11:26:10 -0500 Original-Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p18GQ9p3001048; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 11:26:09 -0500 Original-Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 1BE6137817D; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 09:26:09 -0700 (MST) X-Attribution: Tom In-Reply-To: (Helmut Eller's message of "Mon, 07 Feb 2011 09:05:30 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.67 on 10.5.11.12 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 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:135758 Archived-At: >>>>> "Helmut" == Helmut Eller writes: Helmut> Well, no mutable objects could be shared, which is quite different from Helmut> a lock; especially the case when somebody forgets to use the lock. Tom> I am interested in reasoned arguments, grounded in real Emacs code, to Tom> the contrary for either STM or CSP. Helmut> With some hand-waving, the current way to deal with external processes Helmut> can be seen as form of CSP. Otherwise I'd say current Emacs code Helmut> neither uses STM nor CSP nor locks, which makes it hard to meet your Helmut> request. What I meant by this is that any proposed change has to come with a plan to upgrade the existing body of Emacs Lisp code, not all of which is included in Emacs. With locks it is probably possible to do this piecemeal. I don't know how to do it for CSP, and for STM the C side seems much too hard to contemplate. Likewise, I think sharing mutable objects is inevitable given the way Emacs Lisp is already written. Tom