[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Should this package be included into the NS port?
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Should this package be included into the NS port? |
Date: |
Wed, 23 May 2018 18:26:14 +0300 |
> From: Nick Helm <address@hidden>
> Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 17:11:35 +1200
>
> > In an ideal world (and I believe the Mac port has gone this way) we
> > would put the NSApp run loop in one thread, and Emacs lisp in another
> > and let them communicate with each other asynchronously. This wouldn’t
> > solve everything, but it would make some of our problems easier.
FWIW, that's what the w32 port does.
> > We can’t easily do that, though, as the inter‐thread communication
> > systems provided in Objective‐C are either a pain to implement with
> > complex types like Lisp_Object, or aren’t compatible with GCC and/or
> > GNUstep (Grand Central Dispatch).
Why do you need to have the communications between the threads be in
terms of Lisp objects? In the w32 port, they communicate in C
objects, and the communications pipe is the read_socket_hook. So in a
nutshell, the GUI event thread sends input to the Lisp interpreter as
if it was the other end of a socket through which window-system
events, including keyboard, mouse, and everything else, are coming.
> Putting emacsclient aside again, Emacs as a process (the Lisp loop) is
> intrinsically linked to the concept of a Lisp frame, right? In other
> words, no Lisp frame, no Emacs.
No, that's not true. Why did you think that?
> And, I guess, how does emacsclient beat this one-frame-must-exist
> limitation – does it maintain some kind of fake frame that it hides from
> the windowing system?
That's exactly why your notion of frame-centric Emacs is inaccurate.
- Re: emacs-26.1-rc1: ./configure, (continued)
- Re: Should this package be included into the NS port?, Nick Helm, 2018/05/19
- Re: Should this package be included into the NS port?, Alan Third, 2018/05/19
- Re: Should this package be included into the NS port?, Philipp Stephani, 2018/05/19
- Re: Should this package be included into the NS port?, George Plymale II, 2018/05/19
- Re: Should this package be included into the NS port?, Nick Helm, 2018/05/23
- Re: Should this package be included into the NS port?, Nick Helm, 2018/05/23
- Re: Should this package be included into the NS port?,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: Should this package be included into the NS port?, Stefan Monnier, 2018/05/23
- Re: Should this package be included into the NS port?, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/05/23
- Re: Should this package be included into the NS port?, Alan Third, 2018/05/23
- Re: Should this package be included into the NS port?, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/05/24
- Re: Should this package be included into the NS port?, Philipp Stephani, 2018/05/24
- Re: Should this package be included into the NS port?, Philipp Stephani, 2018/05/24
- Re: Should this package be included into the NS port?, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/05/24
Re: Should this package be included into the NS port?, George Plymale II, 2018/05/15
Re: Should this package be included into the NS port?, George Plymale II, 2018/05/17