From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Philipp Stephani
> Cc: aurelien.aptel+emacs@gmail.com, p.stephani2@gmail.com, tzz@lifelogs.com,
>=C2=A0 emacs-d= evel@gnu.org
> From: Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org>
> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 22:14:38 -0800
>
> And even if it were OK for (say) 'cat' to dump core due to
> > stack overflow in a typical environment (which it's not), Ema= cs is more
> > important than 'cat', because people use it as an interac= tive text
> > editor and do not want to lose their work.
> >
> >> we already crash if we overflow the stack while we're GCi= ng.
> >
> > If so, that's a bug that should get fixed. It's not an ex= cuse to
> > introduce similar bugs.
> >
> > Really, the idea that it's OK for Emacs to crash is a nonstar= ter. Emacs
> > should not crash.
>
> Ideally, we wouldn't have bugs. But we do, and when we hit them, w= e
> should crash reliably and deterministically if we can't recover
> reliably.
I'm sorry, Daniel, but that kind of philosophy is a non-starter with
Emacs.=C2=A0 Saving the user's work even in some cases is much better t= han
not saving it at all.=C2=A0 And the current scheme is quite reliable, it
works in many scenarios, though not all of them.
As for bugs that cause fatal errors, Emacs always tried to catch them
and at least auto-save.=C2=A0