From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 20:03:45 +0100 Message-ID: <874n3hbv1q.fsf@wanadoo.es> References: <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> <83vbvyv08q.fsf@gnu.org> <87lhwuyycb.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87fvn2awbf.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83a9daug6e.fsf@gnu.org> <878usuard6.fsf@wanadoo.es> <838ustvlug.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1393700649 3438 80.91.229.3 (1 Mar 2014 19:04:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 19:04:09 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 01 20:04:15 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 1WJpCp-0000Va-EU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 20:04:15 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60588 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJpCo-0004nK-TW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 14:04:14 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48209) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJpCg-0004mx-DK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 14:04:11 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJpCb-0004FV-28 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 14:04:06 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:37235) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJpCa-0004Dw-Qs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 14:04:00 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WJpCW-0000Mg-VP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 20:03:56 +0100 Original-Received: from 19.red-83-39-162.dynamicip.rima-tde.net ([83.39.162.19]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 20:03:56 +0100 Original-Received: from ofv by 19.red-83-39-162.dynamicip.rima-tde.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 20:03:56 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 81 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 19.red-83-39-162.dynamicip.rima-tde.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:8ZwSaayuk/WrB24aT75akpEeags= 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:170012 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> > It is already implemented. >> >> This is false, as acknowledged by the C++/CEDET developer himself and >> easily testable with a few lines of code. > > What was acknowledged was that CEDET does not implement the full C++ > standard, that's all. Actually, it doesn't implement the C++ language as it was used in the mid 1980s, much less so the old 1998 standard. But that was already stated multiple times, to no avail. > It remains to be seen how important that is to > the Emacs users at large; obviously, CEDET developers didn't think > what they had was useless. CEDET is much more than a C++ parser. Regardless the value of its C++ parser, CEDET remains useful. CEDET can use Clang (and it already has some support for it, AFAIK) for the C++ analysis and then bring in the associated features into Emacs. You seem to think that, by using Clang, CEDET is no longer necessary, when the contrary is the truth: by using Clang, CEDET gets a solid ground for exploiting its own potential. > Your needs are not the only ones, and not necessarily representative > of those of others. Making an strawman does not help to the discussion. >> We don't need the backend, but we need all the other big parts. In the >> case of Clang, that's probably more than 70% of its source code (the >> backend is provided by LLVM, which is a segregated code base.) > > Because Clang was designed and implemented as a compiler, first and > foremost, and not as a CEDET backend. You are showing your ignorance here. You can go to clang.llvm.org and see by yourself, on the front page, that you are wrong, but I guess that you wont to. >From day 1, Clang aimed at modularization, with each component providing a convenient API for the benefit of external clients. Just in passing I'll mention that that was one of the main motivations for creating Clang. Some of today's Clang heavy contributors would have preferred to do that modularization on GCC instead of starting from scratch on a new project, but that was forbidden. Hence Clang is, in great part, a consequence of the GNU policies intended to avoid GCC usage by non-free software. Ironic, uh? > How many times we will need to go through this before you will > understand that hand-waving and unsubstantiated claims are not > convincing? You saw real examples where CEDET failed to handle basic cases, you ignored advice to ask to the experts, you refused to look at the actual code that implements the stuff we are talking about, you prefer to judge on your (evidently) very limited knowledge of C++ than on seeing how others use it, you wont devote some minutes to learn about how difficult it is to implement, you pull from nowhere false claims such as "Clang was designed and implemented as a compiler, first and foremost"... But yeah, I'm the one who resorts to hand-waving and unsubstantiated claims. > These repetitions serve nothing else but discouraging people for > trying different approaches -- is this really your goal and your > agenda? Eli, I sincerely hope that you are not being serious with this. I prefer to mentally see you right now having a good laugh at my stubborn attemps to educate you. Although my real intention is to kill your claim that going with CEDET's C++ parser makes Clang/GCC unnecesary. Hopefully other members on this community got the idea that what you propose is not such a great idea.