[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Dynamic modules: MODULE_HANDLE_SIGNALS etc.
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Dynamic modules: MODULE_HANDLE_SIGNALS etc. |
Date: |
Sun, 03 Jan 2016 17:46:54 +0200 |
> From: Daniel Colascione <address@hidden>
> Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 06:27:34 -0800
>
> > Would someone be willing to summarize where we're at at this point with this
> > discussion? It has been long and large enough that I'm no longer clear on
> > exactly what it is that we do and don't want, and why. Just a summary of our
> > major alternatives at this point, and the most significant points for and
> > against each would be great.
> >
> [...]
> Eli and Paul believe that "Emacs should never crash", and that
> potentially saving user data is worth the risk of undefined behavior,
> which they contend does not occur in practice.
>
> They are wrong. This code is terrible and that we should delete it
> immediately. The code is fundamentally flawed and cannot be made to work
> properly on any platform. No other program attempts to recover from
> stack overflow this way. (I surveyed a few in a previous messages.)
This is not a summary, this is propaganda. If you cannot summarize an
issue objectively, please don't summarize at all. I deliberately
avoided replying for fear of being too involved to write an objective
summary. I wish you exercised the same self-restraint.
John, please disregard this "summary".
Re: Dynamic modules: MODULE_HANDLE_SIGNALS etc., Paul Eggert, 2016/01/03