From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: emacs-dynamic-module in Emacs Git? Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 15:19:44 -0500 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: References: <87siha7r3b.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87lhmz4mtj.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87sih575rc.fsf@lifelogs.com> <8361dyaqf1.fsf@gnu.org> <837fycae5p.fsf@gnu.org> <87y4qs19mi.fsf@lifelogs.com> <874mtfu0et.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83wq6b6z9d.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1417465229 30949 80.91.229.3 (1 Dec 2014 20:20:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 20:20:29 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 01 21:20:22 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 1XvXSF-0001KQ-9Y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 21:20:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33716 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XvXSE-0007RS-P4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 15:20:18 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59383) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XvXS6-0007Pf-3S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 15:20:15 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XvXRy-0000XD-Cc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 15:20:10 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:56730) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XvXRy-0000Ud-6y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 15:20:02 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XvXRr-0001BG-UX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 21:19:55 +0100 Original-Received: from 198.0.146.153 ([198.0.146.153]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 21:19:55 +0100 Original-Received: from tzz by 198.0.146.153 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 21:19:55 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 28 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.0.146.153 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 User-Agent: Gnus/5.130012 (Ma Gnus v0.12) Emacs/25.0.50 (darwin) Cancel-Lock: sha1:/dxrE1PDnk8kitpYmpQwb4OVHPI= 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:178646 Archived-At: On Mon, 01 Dec 2014 14:12:08 -0500 Stefan Monnier wrote: >> By API I meant both directions, the module API for registration and >> metadata, and the Emacs API that modules can use. So I still think a >> call-only API (only in the direction of calling the module) is best for >> now, so that .h file is unnecessary. SM> The exported functions will need to take Lisp_Object arguments and SM> return Lisp_Object values, so they need to be able to test&create SM> Lisp_Objects, hence they need to make calls to Emacs's C code even for SM> the most trivial module imaginable. I don't think that's the only way. Eli and I listed some alternatives. >> I agree with the rest of your comments, except that it's not clear when >> you'll feel that the module loading is settled enough to merge into the >> master branch. SM> The criteria for me is not whether the feature is ready for general use, SM> but whether the code that needs to be merged is sufficiently clean SM> and stable ("stable" in the sense that it probably won't need to be SM> completely replaced by a different implementation, so future changes SM> should be "incremental improvements"). SM> The current code can pretty much be merged as it is. OK, I'll do it in a few hours unless someone objects. Thanks for your review. Ted