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, 09 Jan 2015 19:27:53 +0100 Message-ID: <87r3v3n712.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <83bnxuzyl4.fsf@gnu.org> <87vbkovhh7.fsf@engster.org> <87387rvobr.fsf@engster.org> <83ppat84hk.fsf@gnu.org> <20150106143933.0090bc83@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <83r3v77ij6.fsf@gnu.org> <20150106154539.3d0752c4@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <87wq4ype3z.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <878uherlf3.fsf@wanadoo.es> <20150108194342.1bd83ed1@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1420828096 1703 80.91.229.3 (9 Jan 2015 18:28:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 18:28:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ofv@wanadoo.es, emacs-devel@gnu.org, "Perry E. Metzger" To: Richard Stallman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 09 19:28:10 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 1Y9eI6-0002HZ-4Y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2015 19:28:10 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51764 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y9eI5-0005aL-KN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2015 13:28:09 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55606) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y9eI1-0005a1-Dk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2015 13:28:06 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y9eHy-0004IE-1Q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2015 13:28:05 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:55018) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y9eHx-0004IA-UA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2015 13:28:01 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33957 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y9eHq-0007ki-76; Fri, 09 Jan 2015 13:27:54 -0500 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C1F8DE0BE1; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 19:27:53 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Fri, 09 Jan 2015 12:39:19 -0500") 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: 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:181107 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: > [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] > [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] > [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > > There are refactorings that are impossible > > We were talking about completion -- you are changing the subject, > taking my statements out of context to make a false attack. I think that is an unfair characterization: the strictly limited idea of completion in this thread has admittedly moved a bit to the background in the course of the discussion, but I don't think that this has been either a conscious strategy nor has it been Perry's "doing". > This is an example of your general approach. You (this means several > people) are not trying to help me make the right decision. Rather you > are trying to pressure me to do what you want, at the expense of > something I consider important. I think the salient point here was that we currently have a problem with implementing reliable and powerful versions of completion with awkwardly complex languages like C++ that, for better or worse, are _supposed_ to be well-supported by GNU. However, the effort of tackling this problem is quite similar to a number of other problems that _are_ being successfully addressed by IDEs other than Emacs, and I think that if addressing them by GNU software is to be an option, we need to provide the freedom for experimenting with integration of GCC without close supervision. Admittedly, the imminent project right now seems to be completion. I=A0am somewhat afraid that by the time we have finished the spec books for getting, more or less, the permission for implementing the technical measures on track, there will be nobody bothering to pick them up. > The result of this is that I don't trust your judgment about anything > related to this issue. > > I will try to find out more about these refactoring practices -- > privately, with people I have confidence in, that have no axe to > grind. Shrug. I don't see that the "axe to grind" here is one directed against the goals of the GNU project. Some people might not be interested in the full view of all goals, and some might come to different conclusions about them. In the end, we can only implement one strategy, but that does not make people making different proposals an enemy of the project. > To approach the issue without prejudice, I will need to prevent > resentment for your pressure campaign from influencing me. To help me > overcome it, you would do well to drop the issue right now. That might well be the case: you probably know yourself best. It's still another constraint that might not be easy to properly factor in for some project members, and the facilities needed for that are non-technical and not necessarily a strong skill of typical competent hackers. --=20 David Kastrup