Re: Dynamic modules: MODULE_HANDLE_SIGNALS etc.

[Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1436 bytes --]

On 01/03/2016 07:46 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org>
>> Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 06:27:34 -0800
>>
>>> Would someone be willing to summarize where we're at at this point with this
>>> discussion? It has been long and large enough that I'm no longer clear on
>>> exactly what it is that we do and don't want, and why. Just a summary of our
>>> major alternatives at this point, and the most significant points for and
>>> against each would be great.
>>>
>> [...]
>> Eli and Paul believe that "Emacs should never crash", and that
>> potentially saving user data is worth the risk of undefined behavior,
>> which they contend does not occur in practice.
>>
>> They are wrong. This code is terrible and that we should delete it
>> immediately. The code is fundamentally flawed and cannot be made to work
>> properly on any platform. No other program attempts to recover from
>> stack overflow this way. (I surveyed a few in a previous messages.)
> 
> This is not a summary, this is propaganda.  If you cannot summarize an
> issue objectively, please don't summarize at all.  I deliberately
> avoided replying for fear of being too involved to write an objective
> summary.  I wish you exercised the same self-restraint.
> 
> John, please disregard this "summary".

Nice trick, shutting down discussion so that the code stays by default.
I see nothing wrong with advocacy.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]