From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "John Wiegley" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: New maintainer Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 13:37:34 -0700 Organization: New Artisans LLC Message-ID: References: <560CCEBA.9080607@online.de> <874miapdhs.fsf@openmailbox.org> <8737xuuw2y.fsf@rabkins.net> <87lhbmkrle.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87si5r22qh.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <5612CEA6.3010809@yandex.ru> <87egh95cze.fsf@gmail.com> <5612D36B.1030906@yandex.ru> <87a8rx5awg.fsf@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1444077791 17981 80.91.229.3 (5 Oct 2015 20:43:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 20:43:11 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 05 22:43:06 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 1ZjCbC-00024Q-16 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 22:43:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47669 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZjCbB-0005Lo-BG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 16:43:05 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39973) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZjCXK-0007wk-7W for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 16:39:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZjCXH-0003X1-VU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 16:39:06 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pa0-x235.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::235]:35814) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZjCXH-0003Vz-PB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 16:39:03 -0400 Original-Received: by pacfv12 with SMTP id fv12so190312513pac.2 for ; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 13:39:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:date:organization:message-id :references:user-agent:mail-followup-to:mime-version:content-type; bh=dRCblr9RovlKyOzZXoFfTM0+uhv7UG9FpzYWDX6sB5s=; b=K0Pzj+pFREfGgnEUXNnL0UcbkXhB17GIxjefRem+/EDHB0p+HTHZ35JgA4i5MEv8aI +1qK7HW5WHxmKMlGP5CrssQvl2g6avFivBaLZDnCrb/iIgOR/r802g051Q2XtB+LTSgq PydH8TA60ehT4JBhmBkbmEWK4cb88iUPead9ISEEXgQuLjnMOyJvLto/BECF3fdj3VGl q4rBa5JxJ9wMIEJjR8lhf/Ixzd24QUBpb24R+YiNL0Sk7VimteM4wjaJlGaL8PM76mov Vq5ZdDKlFVSTH/BVRRXj8QV2Chern0GTRksDt7PHiYyFHniqohJZfvBjjOavEJP1rq4n Q73g== X-Received: by 10.68.65.13 with SMTP id t13mr42617938pbs.43.1444077542879; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 13:39:02 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from Vulcan.local (76-234-68-79.lightspeed.frokca.sbcglobal.net. [76.234.68.79]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k10sm29226464pbq.78.2015.10.05.13.39.00 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 05 Oct 2015 13:39:00 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by Vulcan.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 9EF27F0752D2; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 13:38:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87a8rx5awg.fsf@gmail.com> (Jay Belanger's message of "Mon, 05 Oct 2015 15:16:15 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (darwin) Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400e:c03::235 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:190970 Archived-At: >>>>> Jay Belanger writes: >>> Maybe I'm misreading it, but it doesn't sound like what Richard meant at >>> all. I read it as the features have to actually work with GCC ("not just a >>> theoretical idea") to be included. >> >> The issue is that GCC, in its current state, doesn't provide a certain >> set a features Emacs can take advantage of, that Clang does. > That's the point. It sounded like Richard was saying that in that case, > Emacs shouldn't take advantage of it. How else could >> If it really works usefully with GCC -- if that is not just a theoretical >> idea -- then I won't object to its supporting other compilers as well. > be interpreted? I interpret him as meaning that the support should not favor non-GCC compilers in any way, not that GCC should determine the least upper bound on functionality. For example, an automobile can be driven by any able-bodied individual. It does not favor one person over another, because it is adjustable. Both my wife and I can drive the same cars, always. A car does, however, favor ability. A better driver will drive any car better than a worse driver. This does not preclude the worse driver from studying and becoming better, however. It does not "build in" any advantage that makes one driver better, no matter what the other driver does. To me, Emacs is a vehicle for content, and external processes sometimes guide or drive that content, such as GCC or Clang within a C++ buffer. Emacs should be adjustable to allow either one to be used. Certainly one may provide better functionality than the other, but Emacs itself should not favor one over the other. If GCC ends up excelling Clang as a compiler, its Emacs support should be capable of excelling Clang as well, without any change necessary from Emacs to allow this. If, on the other hand, Clang offered some clever API that was specific to Clang, and we built support for that API directly into Emacs to allow a better experience for Clang users, this is what Richard would not allow, according to what I read. John