From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thien-Thi Nguyen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Are there plans for a multi-threaded Emacs? Date: 06 Dec 2003 19:15:55 -0500 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <87oevbes4h.fsf@emacswiki.org> <20031117040607.C6C5D79B72@server2.messagingengine.com> <877k19slxn.fsf@emptyhost.emptydomain.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1070756302 7274 80.91.224.253 (7 Dec 2003 00:18:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 00:18:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 07 01:18:20 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1ASmcu-0002y1-00 for ; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:18:20 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1ASmcu-0004NW-00 for ; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:18:20 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1ASnYm-0003UM-Ix for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:18:08 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1ASnYa-0003UG-QF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:17:56 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1ASnY4-0003Qs-8D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:17:55 -0500 Original-Received: from [207.245.84.69] (helo=colo.agora-net.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.24) id 1ASnY3-0003Qp-2i for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:17:23 -0500 Original-Received: from ttn by colo.agora-net.com with local (Exim 3.34 #1) id 1ASmaZ-0001DR-00; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 19:15:55 -0500 Original-To: Kai Grossjohann In-Reply-To: Kai Grossjohann's message of "Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:58:28 +0000" Original-Lines: 15 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:18482 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:18482 Kai Grossjohann writes: Apparently, the big-lock suggestion is better, but why? because it is likely even new code will need to use old code, and if old code is ignorant of the new conventions, you will have problems. if new conventions can be followed in a ways harmonious w/ the old code, you are ok, but that is not guaranteed. that is probably the impetus behind the big-lock approach. it is like implementing (or even simulating) a flip-flop (dig out your introductory logic design book): order w/in the device matters although it doesn't matter outside. thi