From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs Lisp's future Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 11:24:48 -0400 Message-ID: References: <54193A70.9020901@member.fsf.org> <87lhp6h4zb.fsf@panthera.terpri.org> <87k34qo4c1.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <54257C22.2000806@yandex.ru> <83iokato6x.fsf@gnu.org> <87wq8pwjen.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <837g0ptnlj.fsf@gnu.org> <87r3yxwdr6.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87tx3tmi3t.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <834mvttgsf.fsf@gnu.org> <87lhp5m99w.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1411831540 31903 80.91.229.3 (27 Sep 2014 15:25:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 15:25:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: handa@gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii , dmantipov@yandex.ru, stephen@xemacs.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 27 17:25:32 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 1XXtsI-0000BP-ML for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 17:25:30 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56177 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XXtsI-00023q-9W for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 11:25:30 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54958) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XXts6-00023R-Is for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 11:25:26 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XXtrz-0005e1-2o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 11:25:18 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:5209) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XXtrj-0005QT-0f; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 11:24:55 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArUGAIDvNVNFxKjo/2dsb2JhbABZgwaDSsA9gRcXdIIlAQEBAQIBViMFCwsOJhIUGA0kiAQI0hkXjnoHhDgEqRmBaoNMIQ X-IPAS-Result: ArUGAIDvNVNFxKjo/2dsb2JhbABZgwaDSsA9gRcXdIIlAQEBAQIBViMFCwsOJhIUGA0kiAQI0hkXjnoHhDgEqRmBaoNMIQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,753,1389762000"; d="scan'208";a="91035862" Original-Received: from 69-196-168-232.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([69.196.168.232]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 27 Sep 2014 11:24:48 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 32C8A7ABB; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 11:24:48 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87lhp5m99w.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (David Kastrup's message of "Sat, 27 Sep 2014 16:24:11 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.181 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:174742 Archived-At: >> Could you move on to some other discussion? >> I mean, it's not like this is a problem we need to fix now (if ever). > Uh, Pango was an analogy example. The actual question was whether Emacs > can or should delegate its character encoding/decoding processing (not > really significantly related to Pango but subject to similar > considerations) to GUILE's current mechanisms. Which seem to be > libunistring via libiconv (both GNU libraries it would appear) rather > than the ICU mentioned elsewhere. And, again: it's not like this is a problem we need to fix now (if ever). > The GUILE bridge is there. Robin Templeton's status of the port is that > it is mostly complete, with strings/buffers being the most notable part > obliterating acceptable performance via thick glue layers between Emacs' > and GUILE's different implementations of similar concepts. Do you know this to be a fact? AFAIK, Guile-Emacs could perfectly live with having Emacs buffers, Emacs strings, and Scheme strings, with no extra cost, except when you *want* to convert between them (but as long as you don't run any Scheme, you shouldn't need/want to do any such conversion). Stefan