From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Daniel Colascione Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Unconditional quit on SIGUSR2 Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:08:39 -0700 Message-ID: <4D9106E7.5010902@gmail.com> References: <4D90354E.9000704@gmail.com> <4D908F5F.8000303@gmail.com> <4D90C42F.9060500@gmail.com> <83bp0vrszf.fsf@gnu.org> <4D90E199.2040809@gmail.com> <83aagfrq1y.fsf@gnu.org> <4D90E661.40207@gmail.com> <8362r2sy5x.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1301350136 31055 80.91.229.12 (28 Mar 2011 22:08:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:08:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 29 00:08:51 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 1Q4KcF-0008OL-63 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:08:51 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41772 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q4KcE-0006ls-3l for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:08:50 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=39777 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q4Kc9-0006lP-BA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:08:46 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q4Kc8-00084S-DW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:08:45 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pz0-f41.google.com ([209.85.210.41]:43147) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q4Kc6-00084A-VG; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:08:43 -0400 Original-Received: by pzk32 with SMTP id 32so860172pzk.0 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:08:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=R0oXYFJLQtOIb+uBDHJn/TzDdcrKhc4uk7TfAu7aihk=; b=XOtj/unhGiQqWLDSu+x9Fg/PHY7WIEDdhy1TBIy3mvjhhN5Iaq/v1cXA9nhC18E+x8 Ad3uHp0yzx5VR+t7Uor2bYT8/VC8Z31GgsyaKY9aFulUE90zgQ0ZMkWTyK+SO+1Xp0mz DiAzuDt47S0zmk1GvST1bsTWp/DOL2JzHs7HI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=aMtOM4dZmXYczBLHfNL4QLAOW3pGh1sRUzYgekcQ5voMm++5XDVnEBjxYvdUb04cah YhvTX6gsYMDBhCjAUeUo9QGh1xiQJLYCYNob4QnoQSlr+owWDmJnIZ+3Fw0OWf9UWP3M U99ruE885Aos6hX2HDR/B2CKF9qnGgaXWRcN8= Original-Received: by 10.142.86.2 with SMTP id j2mr3971349wfb.251.1301350122088; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:08:42 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [0.0.0.0] (c-67-183-23-114.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [67.183.23.114]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o11sm6377714wfa.12.2011.03.28.15.08.40 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:08:41 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 In-Reply-To: <8362r2sy5x.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 209.85.210.41 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:137818 Archived-At: On 3/28/2011 3:00 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > I would not recommend anyone to continue using Emacs normally after > interrupting uninterruptible ops. You're not understanding me. I'm not talking about interrupting arbitrary code. Instead, I'm talking about interrupting in safe places in situations where quitting is disabled poor UI would otherwise result, not because the code being run is inherently delicate. If interrupting in these places is dangerous, so is inserting an explicit (debug) in the code. >> It would solve that problem but introduce another: users have no way of >> knowing went font-lock happens. Innocently typing C-g at the wrong time >> can terminate font lock and leave parts of the buffer unfontified. > > If the user doesn't know when to type C-g, she won't know when to type > "kill PID -USR2", either. As covered in another branch of this thread, C-g *is* often ambiguous. It's inherently racy when we allow normal quitting of background work. Users would send this signal to Emacs only after noticing an uninterruptable hang. Is that not clear?