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: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 21:53:09 +0100 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <8761nz0xje.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <87y50z90pd.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <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> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1393620810 4354 80.91.229.3 (28 Feb 2014 20:53:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 20:53:30 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 28 21:53:37 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 1WJUR6-0002eg-2y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 21:53:36 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53248 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJUR5-00081j-P1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:53:35 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48563) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJUQy-00080w-8L for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:53:34 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJUQs-0007kM-E2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:53:28 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:37154) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJUQs-0007kD-75 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:53:22 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WJUQp-0002T3-PY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 21:53:19 +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 ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 21:53:19 +0100 Original-Received: from dak by x2f41c58.dyn.telefonica.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 21:53:19 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 42 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:tMHWLdpoiU0oeSJ8f2MF/dAwZQI= 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:169960 Archived-At: Juanma Barranquero writes: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 6:53 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > >> We don't want Emacs to become more useful to the detriment of GCC. >> Of course, this is the Emacs developer list so it is to be expected >> that some list members are less than enthused about the principle >> underlying this kind of decision. But not taking the underlying >> principle into account when dissenting means that the dissent is only >> relevant to a part of the decisionmaking, and the decisionmaking is >> exactly about finding a _balance_. > > FWIW, I'm not arguing against your position. I just happen to think > that, in this matter, decision making is hardly fact-based, because > facts are scarce. It's much more about how one side and the other see > the consequences of these decisions. I happen to be in the less > pessimist side, but that's just a gut feeling, entirely fact-free. I am not necessarily describing my own position here. I'm feeling somewhat ambiguous about the best course forward, but 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. Even taking the question of policy aside, one wants things like completion to work properly with all GNU extensions to the various languages GCC supports. GNU extensions are basically dead in the water if Emacs refuses dealing with them because its modes are based on working with LLVM. Richard's position as far as I understand is not "we don't want compiler-supported completion in Emacs" but rather "we don't want completion in Emacs that is only supported by using LLVM". Whether or not one wants to consider relying on LLVM bad politically, it means that Emacs will be constrained to support only languages and language dialects at the choice of LLVM developers. At any rate, given the nature of this decision, any attempt to change it would have to be based on bringing previously unconsidered facts to the attention of Richard. "I come to a different conclusion based on the same information" is not going to help. -- David Kastrup