From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: When should ralloc.c be used? (WAS: bug#24358) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 22:58:56 +0200 Message-ID: <83zilknskv.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87twe6sx2g.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <87eg51ng4r.fsf_-_@users.sourceforge.net> <87k2djwumn.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <83h98nidvd.fsf@gnu.org> <87eg3rvtsf.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <83k2dihpm9.fsf@gnu.org> <8760p2wzgj.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <838ttyhhzu.fsf@gnu.org> <871szqwu51.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <831szqhbc2.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1itt79z.fsf_-_@users.sourceforge.net> <7baa18d4-2b09-caa8-005e-29008a383ad1@cs.ucla.edu> <83mvhwrgd5.fsf@gnu.org> <8539f38f-9a11-44c3-4de7-bb974c96206c@cs.ucla.edu> <83d1iq5ib1.fsf@gnu.org> <83r3753c8j.fsf@gnu.org> <83r374wh32.fsf@gnu.org> <83wpgtrmt2.fsf@gnu.org> <83twbvr78y.fsf@gnu.org> <8337jerf6m.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1477947570 17883 195.159.176.226 (31 Oct 2016 20:59:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 20:59:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: npostavs@users.sourceforge.net, eggert@cs.ucla.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 31 21:59:26 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c1Jfp-0003Fx-Fu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 21:59:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38556 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1Jfs-0002HQ-7g for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:59:20 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59700) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1Jfd-0002CF-E9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:59:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1Jfa-0002m8-DO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:59:05 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:54226) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1JfP-0002gP-Bf; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:58:51 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3444 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1c1JfH-0005m2-Qj; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:58:44 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Richard Stallman on Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:18:38 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:209047 Archived-At: > From: Richard Stallman > CC: eggert@cs.ucla.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org, > npostavs@users.sourceforge.net > Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:18:38 -0400 > > > I didn't say it will be unmaintainable, I said its maintenance will be > > harder than of Lisp code. > > That's no horrible thing. "Horrible" is in the eyes of the beholder. I think keeping Emacs as maintainable as possible is very important for its future. > If some C code is an effective way to do it, we shouldn't > reject that just because of a general preference for Lisp code. I'm not rejecting it, just explaining why it shouldn't be the first priority, IMO.