From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Wherein I argue for the inclusion of libnettle in Emacs 24.5 Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 09:28:55 -0500 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87ha8cco2g.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <87ha8f3jt1.fsf@building.gnus.org> <87ppn2qz0f.fsf@building.gnus.org> <87y51qcace.fsf@lifelogs.com> <874n4e3rkm.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87txcdd6d0.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87wqh8n877.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87lhxocvfq.fsf@lifelogs.com> Reply-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1391696959 25526 80.91.229.3 (6 Feb 2014 14:29:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:29:19 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 06 15:29:26 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 1WBPxF-0005tY-7T for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 15:29:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36673 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WBPxE-0001y6-RE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 09:29:24 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:32894) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WBPx5-0001xn-VY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 09:29:21 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WBPx0-0004Ki-4Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 09:29:15 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:50427) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WBPwz-0004KX-VL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 09:29:10 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WBPwu-0005cd-HA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 15:29:04 +0100 Original-Received: from c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net ([98.229.61.72]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 15:29:04 +0100 Original-Received: from tzz by c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 15:29:04 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 45 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6; d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" Mail-Copies-To: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.130008 (Ma Gnus v0.8) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:X8FsVYwLG+sivEfYx6CuoqDohM4= 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:169437 Archived-At: On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 08:03:25 -0500 Stefan Monnier wrote: >> He explained his objections earlier: against OpenPGP implementation, >> prefers FFI, needs use cases. SM> Good summary, indeed, thank you. I promise I won't try to implement OpenPGP in the core. I may write an ELPA package to do it. I may try to create "secret" strings in the core, but I wouldn't even contemplate doing it without prior discussion and review. We have several use cases now, not just from me, posted in this thread. I believe tight integration (at the C level, without FFI) will make exploits against the encryption primitives less likely and will make them more robust. I'm asking you to consider that GnuTLS might be a valid exception to the general move to FFI because it's a facility, not a feature. >> In the past Emacs has rejected functionality because it was against the >> goals of the FSF and the GNU project, not because it was deemed >> amateurish. SM> We do try to keep the core maintainable, which implies trying to keep SM> "amateurish" code out of it. It also implies not adding stuff to it just SM> so someone can play around with that new feature (tho it does happen, SM> since it's always difficult to predict precisely how features will be SM> used). Right, I understand and sympathize. I am asking for an exception, with the understanding that it won't justify others, and with the justification that it's adding primitives from a library we already include, because I think it will benefit users and developers in the long run. SM> But indeed, Elisp allows "amateurish" code, and we're happy to make it SM> possible for amateurs to write their own code and get something useful SM> from it. We all have to start somewhere. Yes. In addition to the FSF and GNU goals, this creative freedom is what makes Emacs great, IMHO. Ted