From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tomas Hlavaty Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: continuation passing in Emacs vs. JUST-THIS-ONE Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 07:01:13 +0200 Message-ID: <87pm81pyw6.fsf@logand.com> References: <87leizif4r.fsf@logand.com> <874jpmfaw9.fsf@logand.com> <87v8i2dnm3.fsf@logand.com> <83jzyh8w7l.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8hup705.fsf@logand.com> <834jpe9bb0.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="16117"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, jporterbugs@gmail.com, karthikchikmagalur@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 18 07:02:34 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 1podUA-000408-Md for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 07:02:34 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1podT3-0008Gh-Fw; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 01:01:25 -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 1podSx-0008GD-Lg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 01:01:24 -0400 Original-Received: from logand.com ([37.48.87.44]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1podSv-0001Nk-Ij; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 01:01:18 -0400 Original-Received: by logand.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 07A7B19E6A5; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 07:01:15 +0200 (CEST) X-Mailer: emacs 28.2 (via feedmail 11-beta-1 I) In-Reply-To: <834jpe9bb0.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=37.48.87.44; envelope-from=tom@logand.com; helo=logand.com X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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:305397 Archived-At: On Tue 18 Apr 2023 at 05:25, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> 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. Fascinating. >> >> 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. Interesting, this is the first time I encoutered such definition of asynchronous.