From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juanma Barranquero Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs contributions, C and Lisp Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 22:48:39 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87y50z90pd.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87txbn8r6x.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <8338j717oe.fsf@gnu.org> <87zjlf6tdx.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83sir7yue7.fsf@gnu.org> <8761o3dlak.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83bnxuzyl4.fsf@gnu.org> <871tyqes5q.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87a9ddg7o8.fsf@engster.org> <87d2i9ee8t.fsf@engster.org> <874n3ke1qn.fsf@engster.org> <87vbvzcjv9.fsf@engster.org> <87iorz18fy.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87a9db15v8.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <8761nz0xje.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1393624160 10599 80.91.229.3 (28 Feb 2014 21:49:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 21:49:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs developers To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 28 22:49:29 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 1WJVJ7-0002ys-Nd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 22:49:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53385 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJVJ7-0000Zd-9T for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:49:25 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58332) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJVJ4-0000ZT-O0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:49:23 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJVJ3-0008NG-OU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:49:22 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-yk0-x22a.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22a]:42181) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJVJ2-0008Mw-Eb; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:49:20 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-yk0-f170.google.com with SMTP id 9so3586448ykp.1 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:49:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=LDgNYyhHXipWR/FoXPXAecCqtrW6dAU1LhMXXa6LSM0=; b=gbcUe7UbsxJT0OtGQ2IoUNdV7TlxKvAi9cnY0VbZ2bkWGIujjmC6eF9zBc0lB58hA1 0JdF+I981VriVjPTcNRsPrBhUwPLT7plTgFd/gGsIjHFOkZRxiF3Zwdnus1g5xZWtS88 6+k6/SMWOBInCls9zpZDrlciNvYRXuLCUtq+8fKxC0INvo/08Mh4EVYUR1LHYgRwEYDl FsmsMjyh+uug/wsxVv9GjDKScv8n4+3e2yb70puaXX8Ud0tFFFJLyUjKL9Umj9x4+AP7 NOyJwGj+gfa9i4CXLisgzYXP9/KkRghB/TSdhwoy1a5Q45O3LV5HnJxupxI1BZ/dv4xq DQBQ== X-Received: by 10.236.44.173 with SMTP id n33mr4274500yhb.98.1393624159839; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:49:19 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.170.197.1 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:48:39 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <8761nz0xje.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22a 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:169961 Archived-At: On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 9:53 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > I am not necessarily describing my own position here. OK, you're right. Sorry if I misrepresented your position. > I agree with the > position of Richard in as far that I would consider it a shame if Emacs > had to rely on LLVM to provide a useful environment for writing code to > be compiled with GCC. But this is not a binary, now-or-never issue. Even if, in some cases, Emacs had to rely on LLVM, that would change as soon as GCC provided equivalent support. > Richard's position as far as I understand is not "we don't want > compiler-supported completion in Emacs" but rather "we don't want > completion in Emacs that is only supported by using LLVM". That can be fixed (for some values of "fixed") by adding compiler support for completion to GCC. The fact that LLVM has it already, and that some Emacs modes could be written to support it, does not preclude extending GCC or creating packages to interact with it (or extending the LLVM-related ones to support both). > Whether or > not one wants to consider relying on LLVM bad politically, it means that > Emacs will be constrained to support only languages and language > dialects at the choice of LLVM developers. I don't see it, really. That's a bit like saying that, because VC was written to support RCS and CVS, it will forever be constrained by the design decissions of CVS developers. And yet it has been extended to grok Subversion, arch, Bazaar, git and Mercurial. I fail to see how "a mode supports LLVM" turns into "depends on LLVM and nothing more, forever". The only thing that would preclude these new modes to also be able to use GCC is if GCC is never extended to provide that facilities, and in that case, we are in deep trouble, because C++ developers will eventually turn to the tools that make their lives easier. > At any rate, given the nature of this decision, any attempt to change it > would have to be based on bringing previously unconsidered facts to the > attention of Richard. "I come to a different conclusion based on the > same information" is not going to help. Yes, sure. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, just trying to understand the differente issues. J