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: Further CC-mode changes Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:22:46 +0200 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <87wq93ve4p.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <53632C6F.5070903@dancol.org> <20140511211351.GC2759@acm.acm> <536FEA43.5090402@dancol.org> <20140516175226.GB3267@acm.acm> <537653A0.2070109@dancol.org> <20140518213331.GB2577@acm.acm> <20140912235948.GA4045@acm.acm> <20140913151055.GB3431@acm.acm> <87vboo2rgk.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1410877431 11444 80.91.229.3 (16 Sep 2014 14:23:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 14:23:51 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 16 16:23:40 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 1XTtfO-0004Rk-6F for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:23:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38300 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XTtfN-0003XO-Qb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 10:23:37 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51339) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XTtf1-0003W1-TA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 10:23:21 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XTtev-0005WQ-W4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 10:23:15 -0400 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:58346) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XTtev-0005Vu-QV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 10:23:09 -0400 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XTtel-0004E8-0Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:22:59 +0200 Original-Received: from x2f52776.dyn.telefonica.de ([2.245.39.118]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:22:59 +0200 Original-Received: from dak by x2f52776.dyn.telefonica.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:22:59 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 22 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: x2f52776.dyn.telefonica.de X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:NQymsLMbLc9AqE+HC5HmL3iXdO4= 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:174360 Archived-At: "Stephen J. Turnbull" writes: > Glenn Morris writes: > > > solve. If you choose to spend some of that time supporting old Emacs > > versions (and XEmacs by now is a very old Emacs version), then that is > > reducing the amount of time you can spend on eg improving C++11 support > > (to pick a non-random example). IMO this is a clear loss, so I hope you > > will reconsider your position on that. > > -1 I think it depends. "Gratuitous incompatibility" is one thing, but "refrain from relying on fixes, useful APIs etc that exist for years already" is another. The responsibility for keeping the core of XEmacs in good working shape, or rather the cost for _not_ keeping the core of XEmacs in good working shape should not be loaded off on Emacs developers. Why should we factually ignore years of work on making Emacs more useful? -- David Kastrup