[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: We have asynchronous sessions, why have anything else?
From: |
Ihor Radchenko |
Subject: |
Re: We have asynchronous sessions, why have anything else? |
Date: |
Thu, 07 Jul 2022 19:17:26 +0800 |
Ivar Fredholm <freddyholms@protonmail.com> writes:
> Hi Ihor, I have a prototype of what I mentioned earlier, at least for python.
> This supports asynchronous, synchronous, session, and session-less blocks.
> It's pretty messy but it helps to illustrate what I had in mind. Let me know
> what you think.
I am not sure how I feel about it.
>From cursory look, the idea looks reasonable implementation-wise.
However, there is one big important requirement which does not appear to
be obeyed by your code: We _must_ be backwards-compatible. All the
existing babel backends must not be broken, especially third-party ones.
We must not make breaking changes to non-private function definitions.
Also, I do not see error handling as it is implemented in our current
babel code: Errors should be displayed in a popup buffer.
Best,
Ihor