July 1998 - XEmacs-Beta - XEmacs Mailing List Archives

Re: Where do you want to go tomorrow? 25 years, 10 months

Hrvoje Niksic

Uh, I am ashamed to admit that I don't understand these examples. I don't know what coroutines are, either. Could you please mail a trivial example, or a URL pointer to such? -- Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia --------------------------------+-------------------------------- Satellite Safety Tip #14: If you see a bright streak in the sky coming at you, duck.

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Where do you want to go tomorrow? 25 years, 10 months

Hrvoje Niksic

wmperry(a)aventail.com (William M. Perry) writes: > Andy Piper <andyp(a)parallax.co.uk> writes: > > > 1e) gif animation. > > Don't forget PNG animation. > > The module stuff needs to be spiffed into better shape as well, and > possibly move some things out into loadable modules. APAGE SATANA! || || || || ====================== || || || || || || || || || || || :-) Seriously, we should be very careful with loadable modules, with the sole exception of using them internally. That would be acceptable. Anything else is calling for BIG trouble. -- Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia --------------------------------+-------------------------------- Jone's law: The man who smiles when things go wrong has thought of someone to blame it on.

2 participants
1 comments

Re: Where do you want to go tomorrow? 25 years, 10 months

Hrvoje Niksic

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull(a)sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> writes: > >>>>> "Hrvoje" == Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> writes: > > Hrvoje> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull(a)sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> writes: > > >> However, this is a matter of taste. For me it is in fact a > >> valid argument against Common Lisp. > > Hrvoje> OK, Steven, you are entitled to your opinion. But I *am* > Hrvoje> astonished that out of all the valid argument against of > Hrvoje> Common Lisp, you choose the `when' macro. > > I don't think it's a big deal, as I already said; you chose to attack > it as invalid. I'm defending it as a valid criticism; that's all. Valid only if you go to extremes -- which you do. I respect your argument only because I respect your right to have an opinion I never will agree with, not because I regard the argument valid for any practical definition of "valid". > For serious developers, I don't think it's that much of an issue. > Aside from the "Naggum effect," from what I've read, I don't think any > of the contributors to this thread would actually quit XEmacs over a > choice between Scheme and CL, I'd have to learn Scheme to be able to contribute to such an XEmacs at all. -- Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia --------------------------------+-------------------------------- Do not meddle in the affairs of troff, for it is subtle and quick to anger.

2 participants
1 comments

Re: Where do you want to go tomorrow? 25 years, 10 months

William M. Perry

Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> writes: > wmperry(a)aventail.com (William M. Perry) writes: > > > Andy Piper <andyp(a)parallax.co.uk> writes: > > > > > 1e) gif animation. > > > > Don't forget PNG animation. > > > > The module stuff needs to be spiffed into better shape as well, and > > possibly move some things out into loadable modules. > > APAGE SATANA! > > || > || > || > || > ====================== > || > || > || > || > || > || > || > || > || > || > || > > :-) This came across as very nicely 2-color in GNUS. :) > Seriously, we should be very careful with loadable modules, with the sole > exception of using them internally. That would be acceptable. Anything > else is calling for BIG trouble. I'm envisioning things that are currently part of the core moving into modules (still maintained within the main tree). At least for now. Perhaps 22.0 or whatever can expose them as a 'real' system for external uses. -Bill P.

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Where do you want to go tomorrow? 25 years, 10 months

William M. Perry

Oliver Graf <ograf(a)fga.de> writes: > wmperry(a)aventail.com (William M. Perry) writes: > > > Andy Piper <andyp(a)parallax.co.uk> writes: > > > > > 1e) gif animation. > > > > Don't forget PNG animation. > > PNG is not animated (at least last time I looked into the specs). But I thing > MNG (pron. MiNG) is the motion pendant of PNG... Sorry - I guess I was thinking of progressive PNG drawing. :) -Bill P.

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Where do you want to go tomorrow? 25 years, 10 months

Oliver Graf

wmperry(a)aventail.com (William M. Perry) writes: > Andy Piper <andyp(a)parallax.co.uk> writes: > > > 1e) gif animation. > > Don't forget PNG animation. PNG is not animated (at least last time I looked into the specs). But I thing MNG (pron. MiNG) is the motion pendant of PNG... Regards, Oliver.

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Where do you want to go tomorrow? 25 years, 10 months

Michael Sperber

>>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen J Turnbull <turnbull(a)sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> writes: Stephen> Coroutines aren't threads Threads are not harder conceptually. It's just that you need more stuff around them like synchronization mechanisms, communication channels etc. etc. Of course, for thread preemption, you need some support from the underlying implementation, i.e. a timer mechanism and non-blocking I/O. From the viewpoint of Scheme, only the timer mechanism is visible. Everything else can, however, be fully implemented in vanilla Scheme. -- Cheers =8-} Chipsy Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla

2 participants
1 comments

ediff eating handles 25 years, 10 months

Sean MacLennan

While using ediff to diff a lot of files, it would always lock up with "Resource busy" error. It looks like every time you use the 'A' or 'B' command to change a buffer, xemacs eats 5 handles. After a while, spawnve returns EGAIN. Sean

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Where do you want to go tomorrow? 25 years, 10 months

Hrvoje Niksic

Holger Schauer <schauer(a)coling.uni-freiburg.de> writes: > >>>>"MS" == Michael Sperber schrieb am 03 Jul 1998 15:18:46 +0200: > > MS> Note that I'm not (not at all!) arguing against the change, I'm > MS> just trying to clarify that it has a cost. > > I believe that this cost is very, very high. Oh come on! The contrived cost of (eq ?A 65) changing from t to nil was much higher, and yet it was changed without too much pain. > A related issue: I thought, okay, then let's support old ELisp and > new-<lisp-flavour-here>-Elisp. Of course we'll support old elisp. Elisp's mapcar will have to map strings, while CL one doesn't, etc. So I agree with you, I just don't agree with the particular argument you stick to (`let'). -- Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia --------------------------------+-------------------------------- HOW YOU CAN TELL THAT IT'S GOING TO BE A ROTTEN DAY: #15 Your pet rock snaps at you.

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Where do you want to go tomorrow? 25 years, 10 months

Hrvoje Niksic

sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) writes: > >>>>> "Hrvoje" == Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> writes: > > Hrvoje> sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) writes: > > >> >> This would entail changing existing Emacs Lisp code in an > >> >> incompatible fashion. > >> > Hrvoje> Can you explain what you mean by incompatible? > >> > >> Old code will obviously not run under the new Elisp engine, because > >> it may intrinsically use dynamic binding for non-DEFVAR'ed names. > > Hrvoje> True. > > >> New code will not run under the old engine because that does not > >> support static binding, > > Hrvoje> Only if you actually use the lexical scope to your > Hrvoje> advantage. Your argument is like saying "specifiers are > Hrvoje> incompatible because lemacs can't use them." > > Ermh, I didn't argue anything. You asked what I meant. Well, I argue that your use of "incompatible", while perhaps correct, is inappropriate in this case. -- Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia --------------------------------+-------------------------------- If anything goes wrong, blame the random-number generator!

1 participants
0 comments

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

XEmacs-Beta July 1998