GNU bug report logs - #64423
29.0.92; save-interprogram-paste-before-kill doesn't prevent streaming large selections

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: sbaugh <at> catern.com
Cc: luangruo <at> yahoo.com, sbaugh <at> janestreet.com, 64423 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#64423: 29.0.92; save-interprogram-paste-before-kill doesn't prevent streaming large selections
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2023 20:02:19 +0300

> From: sbaugh <at> catern.com
> Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2023 16:48:06 +0000 (UTC)
> Cc: luangruo <at> yahoo.com, sbaugh <at> janestreet.com, 64423 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> > You cannot "make Emacs more concurrent", not by and large.  We can
> > make small improvements here and there, if we tread cautiously and do
> > careful damage control after each such change, but that's all.
> 
> That's all I ask for, the ability to make such small, careful, cautious
> improvements.

We seem to differ in what we call "small" improvements...

> > If you look at the low-level code in Emacs and take time to understand
> > how it works, you will agree with me.  (And if you don't agree, we
> > will have this very argument again many times in the future.)  We
> > should accept that fact, and either live with it or start a
> > new-generation Emacs, based on very different designs.  Anything else
> > is just lying to ourselves.
> 
> I've stared at low-level code in Emacs a good amount, but certainly I
> wouldn't claim to understand Emacs yet.  Nevertheless...
> 
> I think Lisp threads shows that this is not true.

If what I said were indeed not true, Lisp threads would have been a
hot feature, used by every package out there.  That it is not so
should teach us something.  I don't know if you tried to write a
serious application based on Lisp threads, but if not, maybe you
should try.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.