From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: What's the problem? (Was: Are there plans for a multi-threaded Emacs?) Date: 09 Dec 2003 21:49:48 -0500 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <20031117040607.C6C5D79B72@server2.messagingengine.com> <87ekvpx18d.fsf@emptyhost.emptydomain.de> <4nad6cikxy.fsf@holmes.bwh.harvard.edu> <4nllpt3hr3.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> <5bad69zd43.fsf@lister.roxen.com> <4noeuon378.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> <4ny8tsgxy6.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> <4nhe0ggv0u.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> <4nk75bwjaf.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> <4nsmjv8d32.fsf@collins.bwh.harvard.edu> <4nu14b6q33.fsf@collins.bwh.harvard. NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1071024919 16826 80.91.224.253 (10 Dec 2003 02:55:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:55:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Ted Zlatanov , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Wed Dec 10 03:55:14 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 1ATuVO-0001AI-00 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 03:55:14 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1ATuVO-0006LI-00 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 03:55:14 +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 1ATvQK-0004uw-26 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:54:04 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1ATvOp-0004jg-BX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:52:31 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1ATvO7-00045V-MI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:52:18 -0500 Original-Received: from [132.204.24.67] (helo=mercure.iro.umontreal.ca) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1ATvNc-0003gu-9C; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:51:16 -0500 Original-Received: from vor.iro.umontreal.ca (vor.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.24.42]) by mercure.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C75E20FE4; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 21:49:49 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: by vor.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 0F36F3CFD9; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 21:49:48 -0500 (EST) Original-To: David Kastrup In-Reply-To: Original-Lines: 15 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 X-DIRO-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-DIRO-MailScanner: Found to be clean 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:18598 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:18598 > Actually, considering the warnings in the manual about the necessary > orders of exception-catchers and buffer switches and let and similar, > I would expect that the different semantics would in most cases be > rather an advantage (and what the programmer would have expected > naively in the first place). A basically static variable allocation > that gets saved and restored on a stack is more prone to surprising > side effects than a straightforward stack. Yes, the semantics would be cleaner, but check the example I posted where we rebind default-directory and switch back&forth between buffers: the old semantics is odd but some code relies on it (basically using `let' instead of `cd'). Stefan