From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 07:26:02 +0100 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <871tym1ll1.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <87txbn8r6x.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <8338j717oe.fsf@gnu.org> <87zjlf6tdx.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83sir7yue7.fsf@gnu.org> <8761o3dlak.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83bnxuzyl4.fsf@gnu.org> <871tyqes5q.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87a9ddg7o8.fsf@engster.org> <87d2i9ee8t.fsf@engster.org> <874n3ke1qn.fsf@engster.org> <87vbvzcjv9.fsf@engster.org> <87iorz18fy.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87a9db15v8.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <8761nz0xje.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1393655185 14807 80.91.229.3 (1 Mar 2014 06:26:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 06:26:25 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 01 07:26:33 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WJdNY-0006GF-7D for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 07:26:32 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54343 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJdNX-00050G-Pf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 01:26:31 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49985) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJdNP-0004zW-B2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 01:26:29 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJdNH-000169-Eo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 01:26:23 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:38128) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJdNH-00015q-8C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 01:26:15 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WJdNE-00066R-N2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 07:26:12 +0100 Original-Received: from x2f41c58.dyn.telefonica.de ([2.244.28.88]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 07:26:12 +0100 Original-Received: from dak by x2f41c58.dyn.telefonica.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 07:26:12 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 26 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: x2f41c58.dyn.telefonica.de X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:E8UerhrX0pg9RB1qYzBhCbnmqUs= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:169968 Archived-At: Juanma Barranquero writes: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 9:53 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > >> I am not necessarily describing my own position here. > > OK, you're right. Sorry if I misrepresented your position. > >> I agree with the >> position of Richard in as far that I would consider it a shame if Emacs >> had to rely on LLVM to provide a useful environment for writing code to >> be compiled with GCC. > > But this is not a binary, now-or-never issue. Even if, in some cases, > Emacs had to rely on LLVM, that would change as soon as GCC provided > equivalent support. Well, a frequently cited motivation of Free Software authors is that they are "scratching an itch". It helps if there is an actual itch. Now this thread shows ample demonstration that Emacs using LLVM for completion is not an itch to a lot of people, whereas not having compiler-based completion at all in Emacs is. Coupling those itches seems to make it more likely somebody will work on the former. -- David Kastrup