From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jay Belanger Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: New maintainer Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 14:31:17 -0500 Message-ID: <87egh95cze.fsf@gmail.com> References: <560CCEBA.9080607@online.de> <874miapdhs.fsf@openmailbox.org> <8737xuuw2y.fsf@rabkins.net> <87lhbmkrle.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87si5r22qh.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <5612CEA6.3010809@yandex.ru> Reply-To: jay.p.belanger@gmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1444073962 21281 80.91.229.3 (5 Oct 2015 19:39:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 19:39:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: jay.p.belanger@gmail.com To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 05 21:39:17 2015 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 1ZjBbM-0006jN-OR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 21:39:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47390 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZjBbM-0006iL-1Q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 15:39:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37508) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZjBbH-0006fh-KP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 15:39:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZjBbE-0000aa-Ed for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 15:39:07 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-io0-x22a.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22a]:34276) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZjBbE-0000Zq-69 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 15:39:04 -0400 Original-Received: by iow1 with SMTP id 1so161154956iow.1 for ; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 12:39:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:subject:references:reply-to:cc:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=1Ea9KaVSATTU1WSnpwMOyeJalLpFf8qdxhLXq6r0Sxk=; b=nKccwFxu0fBizx60/iDg3oTBI64AxY4SYX8SfoDMhi0kpB+qfe1oF5OaQpBmLN1j5b ruFyJv+ueTPZcLuUyRd0kD5K7grb4z7rULxxihW4q/H8nHGlDXlK766x0WMGPTKjGUok q6fjG+BsDnYpDX23tWwzQRLRchfidXeRFpFqpuCNlJMtQf/o2mS6rtDipmmeiHs4ziuK mKiQF1ke2g6xxrDeFEUxC+dJO6wxr5lDMltKfx6Rdt9jmJ/GpSPhX4cUHtyvEqI1tJ/Z dvosRdshPTd6l8N/nCPI67AQ9den4QFMlH86hXNDEz/WqM0DA8w+vbjRxWR84UIo2+MY Wbhg== X-Received: by 10.107.169.102 with SMTP id s99mr29395021ioe.190.1444073623327; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 12:33:43 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from vh213601 (vh213601.truman.edu. [150.243.162.59]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id bd7sm5342633igb.19.2015.10.05.12.33.41 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 05 Oct 2015 12:33:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5612CEA6.3010809@yandex.ru> (Dmitry Gutov's message of "Mon, 5 Oct 2015 22:25:26 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22a 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:190964 Archived-At: > If it really works usefully with GCC -- if that is not just a theoretical > idea -- then I won't object to its supporting other compilers as well. > On 10/05/2015 10:20 PM, John Wiegley wrote: >> Any solution we choose should never preclude the opportunity for GCC to >> outshine other choices. The main thing is that it is GCC's responsibility to >> be better, and not Emacs' to prevent better options from being chosen, simply >> to accommodate a lack of progress by GCC. Dmitry Gutov writes: > I'm assuming that's exactly what Richard meant by "theoretical > idea". At least, it's how similar discussions went in the past. Maybe I'm misreading it, but it doesn't sound like what Richard meant at all. I read it as the features have to actually work with GCC ("not just a theoretical idea") to be included.