Andreas Röhler <andreas.roeh...@easy-emacs.de> writes: > From: Andrea Crotti <andrea.crott...@gmail.com> > Date: 2010-04-13 07:45
> Given that I had some bad experiences with pymacs I would like to avoid > it entirely [...] I'm a bit curious about what those bad experiences have been. It's not that I want you to use Pymacs, I'm not using it much myself :-). Moreover, I could at least warn my users, and it might help python-mode maintainers deciding about what's best for python-mode users. Pymacs has some flaws, which I document in the manual when I learn about them. Some may be serious. When signals get intercepted on the Python side, the Lisp part and the Python part lose synchronization while unstacking, while they should ideally unstack synchronously. Threading on the Python side may seriously mix things if proper care is not taken. And more recently, I saw that Pymacs is useless at really inspecting the state of a running program started though python-mode. At least weaker than pdb. Completion is surely limited, would it be for this reason. I'm not saying that Pymacs should be avoided, but at least, we should try to have a clear mind about what it can and cannot do. So yes, bad experiences are worth reporting, too. :-) François _______________________________________________ Python-mode mailing list Python-mode@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-mode
