From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tom Tromey Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Concurrency Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 20:18:38 -0600 Message-ID: References: <27349166.post@talk.nabble.com> <4B754E74.8060705@swipnet.se> <27563610.post@talk.nabble.com> <4B7564C7.1010309@swipnet.se> <27564728.post@talk.nabble.com> <4B756FB7.3050202@swipnet.se> <87k4ui4gik.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <27566385.post@talk.nabble.com> <87wryi2sjd.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <27585994.post@talk.nabble.com> <87k4ucdmwh.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87d3zweq4e.fsf@master.homenet> <87y6hg1h4a.fsf@thor.thematica.it> <87tys3j9fa.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87eij6tqmu.fsf@lifelogs.com> <49707.130.55.132.67.1269807922.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov> <4BAFC896.9060405@censorshipresearch.org> Reply-To: Tom Tromey NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1269829391 30897 80.91.229.12 (29 Mar 2010 02:23:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 02:23:11 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Ted Zlatanov , Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Daniel Colascione Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 29 04:23:06 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nw4d7-0008NL-W8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 04:23:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33645 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nw4d7-0005S5-Cq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:23:05 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Nw4Z5-0002Uh-CG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:18:55 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=33838 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nw4Z4-0002U6-08 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:18:54 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nw4Z2-0001YT-3A for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:18:53 -0400 Original-Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:29301) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nw4Z1-0001YP-Rn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:18:52 -0400 Original-Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o2T2IjUL022207 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:18:45 -0400 Original-Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o2T2Ig5F012515; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:18:43 -0400 Original-Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o2T2Id7g012067; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:18:39 -0400 Original-Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 7F4A33780C2; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 20:18:38 -0600 (MDT) X-Attribution: Tom In-Reply-To: <4BAFC896.9060405@censorshipresearch.org> (Daniel Colascione's message of "Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:22:30 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.67 on 10.5.11.12 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:122837 Archived-At: Daniel> It really shouldn't be recursive at all: Daniel> http://www.zaval.org/resources/library/butenhof1.html My experience with Java is that recursive mutexes are pretty convenient, and in practice don't cause any actual problems. I think most of this paper is cutely worded but basically wrong. I'm sure in the end it won't matter though. If you really want non-recursive mutexes, somebody else can reinvent them in elisp. Tom