From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?Q?Przemys=c5=82aw_Wojnowski?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 21:34:19 +0200 Message-ID: <5621513B.8060108@cumego.com> References: <561A19AB.5060001@cumego.com> <87io6dl0h0.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87lhb82qxc.fsf@gmail.com> <87oag4jk74.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87k2qrki45.fsf@wanadoo.es> <8737xf9je9.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87pp0fm0j3.fsf@gnu.org> <87r3kusx8z.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83lhb26eb9.fsf@gnu.org> <876126key3.fsf@gnu.org> <83fv1a6bfu.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1445024087 24160 80.91.229.3 (16 Oct 2015 19:34:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 19:34:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: dak@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii , =?UTF-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=c3=a8s?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 16 21:34:38 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 1ZnAlu-0003Cn-NH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 21:34:34 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55575 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZnAlt-0007eG-O5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 15:34:33 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54095) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZnAlq-0007bF-10 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 15:34:30 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZnAlk-0004Qy-PT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 15:34:29 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp23.iq.pl ([86.111.242.228]:36416) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZnAlk-0004Nh-9j for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 15:34:24 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 18310 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2015 19:34:20 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.1.106]) (esperanto@cumego.com@[159.205.196.239]) (envelope-sender ) by smtp22.iq.pl with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 16 Oct 2015 19:34:20 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 In-Reply-To: <83fv1a6bfu.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 86.111.242.228 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:191785 Archived-At: W dniu 16.10.2015 o 18:11, Eli Zaretskii pisze: > In any case, Emacs can never be satisfied with the current Guile > infrastructure for i18n. There are too many shortcomings, some of > them were mentioned here. Yes, Guile can be fixed to be better in > that area, but no one is working on that, AFAIK, and what's more > important, lead Guile developers don't even agree Guile should move in > that direction. (This especially puzzles me: to have a good example > before you and not follow it? Emacs learned what it has now the hard > way, have paid in blood, sweat and tears for that knowledge, and still > Guile developers think they "know better"? Present parties excluded, > of course.) Is i18n the only obstacle? IOW if someone would improve Guile's i18n infrastructure to match that of Emacs, would it be included into Emacs? To be clear, I'm not asking to make a pressure on you, but only in context of motivation. If someone would know that i18n is the only obstacle, maybe this person(s) would find motivation to do the job. Without that it is discouraging. This way or another, a clear decision would be helpful here. "Yes, we want if...", "No, we don't want, because...". At least it would clarify everything and close the topic. Thanks, Przemysław