From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Qiantan Hong Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Question: suppress ask-user-about-lock? Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2021 22:12:04 +0000 Message-ID: <9BD64CB7-D2A8-43DE-9E34-209F45081BD7@mit.edu> References: <6DAB082C-127B-4EC4-86EA-EDC97DF1FA39@mit.edu> <87ilvyucsd.fsf@gmx.de> <4F0C4FAB-FAFB-4F30-8770-BDD94ACAF64A@mit.edu> <87ee6mubwk.fsf@gmx.de> <87lf0uoitq.fsf@rfc20.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="5986"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Michael Albinus , "emacs-devel@gnu.org" To: Matt Armstrong Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Dec 08 23:13:22 2021 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 1mv5Bi-0001Lq-0n for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2021 23:13:22 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39540 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mv5Bg-0004iv-EJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2021 17:13:20 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:50294) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mv5Au-00042c-DK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2021 17:12:32 -0500 Original-Received: from outgoing-exchange-7.mit.edu ([18.9.28.58]:57396) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mv5As-0004gm-IX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2021 17:12:31 -0500 Original-Received: from w92exedge3.exchange.mit.edu (W92EXEDGE3.EXCHANGE.MIT.EDU [18.7.73.15]) by outgoing-exchange-7.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 1B8MBrVD018356; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 17:12:27 -0500 Original-Received: from oc11expo16.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.4.47) by w92exedge3.exchange.mit.edu (18.7.73.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.26; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 17:11:11 -0500 Original-Received: from oc11expo16.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.4.47) by oc11expo16.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.4.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.23; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 17:12:04 -0500 Original-Received: from oc11expo16.exchange.mit.edu ([18.9.4.47]) by oc11expo16.exchange.mit.edu ([18.9.4.47]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.023; Wed, 8 Dec 2021 17:12:04 -0500 Thread-Topic: Question: suppress ask-user-about-lock? Thread-Index: AQHX7FnpvLKd92Axe0CAty+7m0qSnawo98VogABVTAD//7AJ7oAAVcYAgAAnGoCAAAJlgA== In-Reply-To: <87lf0uoitq.fsf@rfc20.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [128.12.11.144] Content-ID: <8585A05A4170EE4E9034AED97EAAA627@exchange.mit.edu> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=18.9.28.58; envelope-from=qhong@mit.edu; helo=outgoing-exchange-7.mit.edu X-Spam_score_int: -41 X-Spam_score: -4.2 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:281402 Archived-At: > (info "(elisp)Threads") talks about `let' bindings being thread local. > I always took that to apply to the other let-like bindings as well. It > looks like `cl-letf' uses `let*' under the hood. For LETFing a symbol-function, it FSETs under the hood, which is not safe. In fact it is impossible to do it using thread-safe let only, because code outside of the CL-LETF calls the function from the function cell, and to have your binding affect them the only way is to set the thread-unsafe function cell.