From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: User interaction from multiple threads Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 19:55:47 +0300 Message-ID: <83sh3fin70.fsf@gnu.org> References: <838t59j821.fsf@gnu.org> <5B73DF10.5070200@gmx.at> <87muto5998.fsf@gmx.de> <5B73ED7E.5000102@gmx.at> <87in4b6hwf.fsf@gmx.de> <5B741C4E.6060403@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1534352130 9340 195.159.176.226 (15 Aug 2018 16:55:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 16:55:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: michael.albinus@gmx.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 15 18:55:26 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fpz4v-0002GE-Qm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 18:55:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50607 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fpz70-0004uJ-KA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 12:57:34 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59872) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fpz61-0004tW-EA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 12:56:51 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fpz5f-0007YL-44 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 12:56:16 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:51872) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fpz5Q-0007VM-6V; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 12:56:06 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2429 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1fpz5M-0004bs-J1; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 12:55:52 -0400 In-reply-to: <5B741C4E.6060403@gmx.at> (message from martin rudalics on Wed, 15 Aug 2018 14:27:58 +0200) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:228563 Archived-At: > Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 14:27:58 +0200 > From: martin rudalics > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org > > In that window, the commander also gives me the opportunity to, at any > time, pause, resume and cancel copying. And it allows to do copying > in a non-blocking "background" mode. That latter option is quite > valuable because I only after some time may detect that copying takes > too long and I would like to perform some other synchronous activity > before it has finished. > > In this scenario, the entire copying operation is controlled by the > window dedicated to that copying thread and all my dialog with that > thread goes through that window (and maybe some modal child window > popping up on top of it). Maybe I'm biased - but I would still > consider this a worthwhile behavior. It is a worthy behavior, but it would require that we rethink, redesign, and reimplement most of the Emacs keyboard stuff and the higher-level abstractions that read from the minibuffer. For starters, recall that reading from the minibuffer is mostly a trick: we just enter recursive editing. The keyboard handling code has almost no idea that something special is going on, and it doesn't distinguish between "normal" top-level keyboard input and input in response to a minibuffer prompt. Your proposal in affect means that keyboard input should be sensitive to the current buffer, and do different low-level things in different buffers, like send input to a different thread. This completely inverts how things work now: we first read the input, insert it into the minibuffer, and then higher-level code works on the text in the minibuffer. By contrast, you want input to be sent to keyboard code from a buffer(??).