From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 10:20:51 +0300 Message-ID: <83zizi3qr0.fsf@gnu.org> 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> <87d1weo7u9.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1445066488 26017 80.91.229.3 (17 Oct 2015 07:21:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 07:21:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 17 09:21:17 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 1ZnLno-000464-4s for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 09:21:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57304 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZnLnn-0007dd-8y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 03:21:15 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34731) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZnLnZ-0007dF-Kc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 03:21:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZnLnW-0003dv-IK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 03:21:01 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout24.012.net.il ([80.179.55.180]:35400) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZnLnW-0003dr-Ak; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 03:20:58 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout24.012.net.il by mtaout24.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NWC00G00RWHJK00@mtaout24.012.net.il>; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 10:14:11 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.94.185.246]) by mtaout24.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NWC0065PS3NYH80@mtaout24.012.net.il>; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 10:14:11 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <87d1weo7u9.fsf@gnu.org> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 80.179.55.180 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:191810 Archived-At: > From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 22:51:26 +0200 >=20 > Eli Zaretskii skribis: >=20 > > In any case, Emacs can never be satisfied with the current Guile > > infrastructure for i18n. There are too many shortcomings, some o= f > > them were mentioned here. Yes, Guile can be fixed to be better i= n > > that area, but no one is working on that, AFAIK, and what's more > > important, lead Guile developers don't even agree Guile should mo= ve in > > that direction. (This especially puzzles me: to have a good exam= ple > > 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 exclu= ded, > > of course.) >=20 > My point is: Emacs can keep doing its own thing in that area. Of course. But that takes away a serious chunk of arguments in favor of Guile-based Emacs, for 2 reasons: (a) there will have to be a non-trivial translation layer between the two, and (b) a very large part of Emacs's C core will have to be left intact, instead of removing it because Guile already does that. > (And I would guess that neither C++, nor Lua, nor anything else wou= ld > provide an i18n infrastructure that would satisfy Emacs out-of-the-= box.) Of course. But the Guile alternative is being brought up as being much better than those others. If we leave the strings and i18n alone, a large part of that argument goes away.