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 16:03:14 -0500 Message-ID: <87egh9qb8t.fsf@gmail.com> References: <874miapdhs.fsf@openmailbox.org> <8737xuuw2y.fsf@rabkins.net> <87lhbmkrle.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87si5r22qh.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <5612CEA6.3010809@yandex.ru> <87egh95cze.fsf@gmail.com> <5612D36B.1030906@yandex.ru> <87a8rx5awg.fsf@gmail.com> 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 1444079046 6739 80.91.229.3 (5 Oct 2015 21:04:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 21:04:06 +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 23:04:05 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 1ZjCvU-0002kA-1S for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 23:04:04 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47738 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZjCvT-0004Wc-JK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 17:04:03 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48670) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZjCvP-0004WT-Kg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 17:04:00 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZjCvK-0005IX-Lv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 17:03:59 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-oi0-x22c.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22c]:35474) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZjCvK-0005IL-HR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 17:03:54 -0400 Original-Received: by oiww128 with SMTP id w128so98141014oiw.2 for ; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 14:03:54 -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=xFN4t08TAwTMl5oU7Onq4jAHvyxhjhu9S9DlifIV9mU=; b=0GCfK0Jma+kTQxymCMZqQd8etVq0d5qF3jn/fBlrfERA6QZsAjoKN5wNmEDEkcEccR 69yOoe+mePtAVodLLrsYSoRwWAndlv4maVc/xW3wRhjAEhYQJwXjbdfQADtQd5UWDsNA P8RMZE7T4OVEKdh1Q3VZ8c+TkflSJRrFUKv+QcHmz656Q/l9NbPalNK85UrTAHbqXi8N rJqM7Zumxt2ddU0+9eqhiuzgagnv+1IQsmHs3valgLpnZWMwcT1OZFEQdkYaPXlhEVwk W4ltO0KwlsgiUt4Xfqyv0VVTkLkUKGQh00tUP6+pLmNUeZe5IItPre+0A4qFAgw+0Vx3 r//w== X-Received: by 10.202.75.199 with SMTP id y190mr17915432oia.116.1444079033974; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 14:03:53 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from belanger-home (67-60-185-108.cpe.cableone.net. [67.60.185.108]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h132sm12688652oib.23.2015.10.05.14.03.52 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 05 Oct 2015 14:03:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (John Wiegley's message of "Mon, 05 Oct 2015 13:37:34 -0700") 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:f8b0:4003:c06::22c 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:190973 Archived-At: "John Wiegley" writes: > If, on the other hand, Clang offered some clever API that was specific > to Clang, and we built support for that API directly into Emacs to > allow a better experience for Clang users, this is what Richard would > not allow, according to what I read. Ah. This sounds different than what you wrote before: >> 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. I took this to mean if Clang offered something that Emacs could support, then it would be GCC's responsibility to add it. But I'm probably misunderstanding something. Thanks for the answer.