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: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 09:40:53 -0700 Organization: New Artisans LLC Message-ID: References: <561A19AB.5060001@cumego.com> <87io6dl0h0.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87lhb82qxc.fsf@gmail.com> <878u78b3hg.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87h9lwyv33.fsf@gmail.com> <561C368F.6010306@cs.ucla.edu> <87oag3xb2i.fsf@gmail.com> <20151013114630.GA4613@acm.fritz.box> <87io6bou1j.fsf@gmail.com> <87si5f0x2s.fsf@openmailbox.org> <878u7696yc.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1444759074 25271 80.91.229.3 (13 Oct 2015 17:57:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:57:54 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 13 19:57:50 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 1Zm3pd-0008Vu-Hh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 19:57:49 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38041 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zm2f2-0000q6-HV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:42:48 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45641) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zm2dJ-0000Nq-T8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:41:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zm2dF-0006z0-PX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:41:01 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pa0-x22f.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22f]:32773) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zm2dF-0006yk-DV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:40:57 -0400 Original-Received: by pabrc13 with SMTP id rc13so26183251pab.0 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 09:40:56 -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=WJYeIUYZ1iy60HtxRFElZLmN6IAMRGeuV2e+qBxBI0Q=; b=UV4yFQFlGcOoX6T47yjkPa0h7jN4GtViw0BFGnEgj6cGRJm3lMDX9R/SrPI/m0iGUc d3bE8LGi7b5Hd9agd2MglrXV8zj7hmsuBFOGYf6Lat+9u7L6BqVWEAjyfWlFRFPxQ7HT j6YsfH5skvxSjXcQMyu49rYHxdTAhxTuoSPMsQJlaJm7JLFT6lkgSb9D9uwBSA8DHNza /Y9Hk469xvVGqde/rg1eGFjlnViOeY+O+CuiSEAbgyz9DTM079hSJesNvxL9qeCGnVjW 32D4UciWm/REgP0artUnH/O4s6vo/Ua2e9j8crWsXeQQZw3Q1p8RwBncCkps3yNs65VD sL1g== X-Received: by 10.66.120.237 with SMTP id lf13mr41051473pab.25.1444754456805; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 09:40:56 -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 sv9sm4793019pbc.44.2015.10.13.09.40.55 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 13 Oct 2015 09:40:55 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by Vulcan.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id ACA48F2DB21F; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 09:40:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Andreas Schwab's message of "Tue, 13 Oct 2015 18:26:02 +0200") 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::22f 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:191502 Archived-At: >>>>> Andreas Schwab writes: > David Kastrup writes: >> I don't get the preoccupation with the order and the talk about "historical >> irregularity". I can perfectly well write >> >> unsigned const int extern x; >> >> and that is a well-formed declaration. > Though obsolescent. (6.11.5) Please move this to another thread. It has zero relevance to the subject. John