From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: emacs-29 8bf4cdcf79: Avoid recursive process filters in lisp/jsonrpc.el (bug#60088) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2022 20:57:04 -0500 Message-ID: References: <167118072395.30479.8819833637573037468@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <20221216085204.43B07C04961@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <87h6xufv4v.fsf@neverwas.me> <877cypbth9.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="21869"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: F. Jason Park , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: =?windows-1252?B?Sm/jbyBU4XZvcmE=?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 18 02:57:55 2022 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 1p6iw7-0005XE-5R for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2022 02:57:55 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p6ivT-0005kk-AN; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 20:57:15 -0500 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 1p6ivQ-0005kU-Qc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 20:57:12 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p6ivP-0001mC-6l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 20:57:12 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 467C8100197; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 20:57:08 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8EC0F100129; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 20:57:06 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1671328626; bh=u+J8KG2BpITec3bh4Gocu777RyucB6lGgP8zrxCc9ZQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=kjK0MRcjoojCTmPlzf0bFk7SMFozzoAkaDLUVCkK0ma3PlpIuQLtQvFsOcMEOWAsX 69B78Uz7rhEHPj/Q19i5z0NmWUYAkUw5rLcWDiHx4UudAQVQSm0UWi8kv97Hp/DqHZ T7knzS8T6pACNDv8dTZnO8hQ/TOG9ZFzWCXaKL9891amD9mzmDJYdm7LQLrXq9pVUA ZkjnC/NNy7xnnc5tucGLiTjJw73AZyznjYkoiyGmavP8egjnuwm3bI6R2nFbKKBZuj ZudICDyaNRwjXh2BJYJnMWxzbCEiBgH2dgWMLJr+NssDR7OIVzkXQ7GICGoRjivooJ Nn4+DZyw4RNoQ== Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [45.72.200.228]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4F4C912025D; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 20:57:06 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <877cypbth9.fsf@gmail.com> (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Jo=E3o_T=E1vo?= =?windows-1252?Q?ra=22's?= message of "Sat, 17 Dec 2022 21:39:14 +0000") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:301595 Archived-At: >> Indeed. I think this points to the need to "spawn" a piece of code to >> be executed "ASAP" but not necessarily immediately. > > Would that be sth like > > (if in-process-filter (run-at-time 0 nil #'piece-of-code) (piece-of-code)) > > ? ... supposing in-process-filter existed, of course. I was thinking of something more like unconditonally (run-at-time 0 nil #'piece-of-code) tho abstracted behind a function. >> This way when a process filter needs to send something in response to >> what it received, it can just "spawn" the send, so we can return from >> the process filter before the send finishes. > > I guess you can see it that way too. So there are two ways to solve > this: > > * only process-send-input in process filters makes sense > * all but process-send-input in process filters makes sense I assume you meant to write `process-send-string`, but I don't know what you mean by the above (I understand neither bullets). > I'm more into of the first persuasion, but I think it shouldn't allow > output to be accepted when called from within a process filter. Indeed, as a general rule doing a "blocking wait", such as `accept-process-output` from within async code (process filter, timer, etc..) is generally undesirable. Stefan