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 Lisp's future Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 14:07:20 +0200 Message-ID: <8761glrv2f.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <87wq97i78i.fsf@earlgrey.lan> <87sijqxzr2.fsf@newcastle.ac.uk> <878uliwajb.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> <87lhpitg6t.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87wq92uhwh.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> <87wq91si9s.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87oauduue2.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> <87a95xs0j8.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87bnqdupyc.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1411042062 7315 80.91.229.3 (18 Sep 2014 12:07:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 12:07:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Taylan Ulrich Bayirli/Kammer Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 18 14:07:35 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 1XUaUo-0005Ly-BI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 14:07:34 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50249 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XUaUn-0004EQ-Sp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 08:07:33 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53828) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XUaUi-0004Ds-H1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 08:07:30 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XUaUh-0002QK-1e for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 08:07:28 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:46243) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XUaUg-0002OV-Ug for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 08:07:26 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53418 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XUaUb-000125-EV; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 08:07:21 -0400 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EDBEBDF8D0; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 14:07:20 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <87bnqdupyc.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> (Taylan Ulrich Bayirli's message of "Thu, 18 Sep 2014 13:29:31 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:174495 Archived-At: Taylan Ulrich Bayirli/Kammer writes: > David Kastrup writes: > >> I think you are misunderstanding the problem. The problem is not that >> technical problems occured after large changes. The problem is that >> GUILE developers cannot be bothered with the fallout in affected >> projects. > > I don't mean to insult but I have the impression that, what the Guile > developers could not be bothered with might have been the LilyPond > maintainer rather than LilyPond itself. Shrug. Naturally, after Andy Wingo prohibited me from bothering the Guile developer list any more, the number of contacts went down. I sent several major developers who had _after_ the interdictum offered to help the respective information about the state of the GUILE 2.0 port and how to check out and work with LilyPond. None of them ever got back to me. At any rate, it has been mentioned previously in this discussion that the Emacs developer list is not always considered a happy-go-lucky environment. So if it is the habit of GUILE developers to take out revenge on a project and its users for enmity with single developers, that's also relevant for making crucial GNU software depend on GUILE. I think this interpretation of events is not making for a much better outlook. Particularly because Emacs development is more often than other GNU projects governed by unpopular political decisions. A habit of retaliation and "see-where-this-will-get-you" in order to pressure for a change in project lead is not likely going to work out well. I don't think that you are better off selling this situation as a personal vendetta, and it is not like the GUILE 2 problem was not already there when I started to get involved with LilyPond. >> GUILE development will cater better for Elisp than for Scheme? That >> does sound peculiar. Is this pitch being made anywhere else apart >> from the Emacs developer list? > > Guile has authority over Guile-Scheme, but not over Elisp; it has to > and will support Elisp as defined by Emacs as much as possible. > That's pretty obvious I'd say. "This is not possible" will be defined under the constraints of GUILE remaining Scheme according to GUILE's vision of interpretating the Scheme standard and its further evolution. > If the Emacs/Guile merge became fully complete in several years and > all remnants of non-Guile Emacs disappeared, then it could be vaguely > imaginable that Guile took control over Elisp semantics, but that > "ain't gonna happen" under such Emacs community pressure. :-) You can > bet on Guile taking Elisp only to where Elispers want it to go. The question now is not where GUILE will take Elisp but rather whether its interpretation of Elisp can get close enough to make a switch feasible in the first place. -- David Kastrup