From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: request to reconsider libnettle/libhogweed Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 13:33:07 -0500 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87wpc7h6l8.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <83a89gq3us.fsf@gnu.org> <87bmtjiv0w.fsf_-_@lifelogs.com> Reply-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1488488817 3240 195.159.176.226 (2 Mar 2017 21:06:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 21:06:57 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 02 22:06:51 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cjXvx-00084I-UB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 22:06:46 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54626 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cjXw2-0000tY-7M for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 16:06:50 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50695) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cjXqU-00051F-Jo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 16:01:07 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cjXqS-0003vV-CJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 16:01:06 -0500 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=55980 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cjXqS-0003tK-54 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 16:01:04 -0500 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cjVXO-0004ax-FQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 19:33:14 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 31 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org 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 Cancel-Lock: sha1:Jxa6aNGxEbj45ahKGmtFe3UP788= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:212718 Archived-At: On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 09:58:57 -0800 Paul Eggert wrote: PE> On 03/02/2017 06:59 AM, Ted Zlatanov wrote: >> * we already link to GnuTLS, which means those C functions are available >> already. PE> If Emacs's module system were always present and worked well, this could be PE> supported via a module that consisted entirely of glue, i.e., a module that PE> merely exposes C functions already present in Emacs. Since the module system PE> isn't guaranteed, though, it may be better to create new built-in Elisp PE> functions for this, at least for now. There won't be anything in these functions that precludes moving them. PE> Is there some way that we can say "these functions are built-in now, but may be PE> moved to a module later"? If not, perhaps there should be. I'll be happy to annotate them as needed, but I don't know who will care about such annotations? Perhaps it's better to mark the functions as dependent on a particular Emacs feature, sort of like `gnutls-available-p' but as a per-function tag. On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 17:55:07 +0200 Eli Zaretskii wrote: EZ> Please show the patch, perhaps after updating it to match the current EZ> master, and let's discuss then. That's the technical side, and I'll gladly do it if John agrees it's acceptable in principle. I'd rather not spend hours on it otherwise. Ted