From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: continuation passing in Emacs vs. JUST-THIS-ONE Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 05:25:07 +0300 Message-ID: <834jpe9bb0.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87leizif4r.fsf@logand.com> <874jpmfaw9.fsf@logand.com> <87v8i2dnm3.fsf@logand.com> <83jzyh8w7l.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8hup705.fsf@logand.com> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="19152"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, jporterbugs@gmail.com, karthikchikmagalur@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Tomas Hlavaty Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 18 04:26:00 2023 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 1pob2d-0004iK-3m for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 04:25:59 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pob1j-0007os-IY; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 22:25:03 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pob1h-0007oC-D5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 22:25:01 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pob1g-00065E-L7; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 22:25:00 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=aNxMVoC2pCjMeIqvp/kTI3cMqhlvpy8hd64ymA560Y4=; b=jgTTP1zDx3JB UeQsPERNTKvVEAcLLYvRqWQj6l+X2DBWULG7bR3mi3tUWQzd5QhqTyVSNF4tUQ4+FIicajQGMm1cn BWOfLDiw1dr5KRmDoAUQiRHr5mux8iwNcB+DF4CtdFiC3St+ToyfEozPDF8I7gO0eT6A2fqhlUDpX Z/apKz9zgJ5h2R6N4nlec6nVt3lpnM/e+FdNrkKlfO0fTWCw0oquLZIc6bYqLAdltDNRm6N2E+CDG hDMH/16bis5SJUlLJr/+EeDo/6CF2vfKULZopcCjVg4XO3c7Nehf/2zR2U6os2VrlRN/nfwSAaiNs /K8G7k9ZA5fzKrT0cM3syQ==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pob1g-0003Ry-4m; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 22:25:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87v8hup705.fsf@logand.com> (message from Tomas Hlavaty on Mon, 17 Apr 2023 22:51:22 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:305394 Archived-At: > From: Tomas Hlavaty > Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, jporterbugs@gmail.com, > karthikchikmagalur@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2023 22:51:22 +0200 > > On Wed 12 Apr 2023 at 09:13, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Async subprocesses are currently the only feature in Emacs that > > provides an opportunity for writing asynchronous code. > > Do you not consider, for example, using implementations of async/await > using promisses and CPS rewriting "writing asynchronous code"? > > Do you not consider, for example, doing the same using callbacks as > "writing asynchronous code"? Not necessarily. > >> I do not know how useable threads in Emacs are at the moment, > >> but they are already there and the examples I tried worked well. > > > > If you think Lisp threads in Emacs allow asynchronous processing, you > > are mistaken: they don't. Only one such thread can be running at any > > given time. > > The examples I wrote worked fine with threads. The examples did not > require parallelism. I do not think that what you suggest disqualifies > threads for "writing asynchronous code". > > It would be great to have better thread implementation, but that does > not seem to have anything to do with "writing asynchronous code". > > Here is what I understand under synchronous code: > > (plus 1 2) > returns 3 immediatelly > > Here is what I understand under asynchronous code: > > (plus 1 2) > returns something immediately > and then some time later 3 appers in the *Message* buffer, for > example > > How that is achieved is an implementation (possibly leaky) detail. In my book, asynchronous means parallel processing, not just delayed results.