From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Platform independent graphical display for Emacs Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2021 14:17:22 +0100 Message-ID: <87fsqgsu1p.fsf@telefonica.net> References: <87ilvgwfor.fsf@telefonica.net> <834k6zwvi1.fsf@gnu.org> <87h7azilmu.fsf@yahoo.com> <87sfujh4a2.fsf@yahoo.com> <877dbuhm6j.fsf@yahoo.com> <87tueyg5gc.fsf@yahoo.com> <83y24asbh4.fsf@gnu.org> <83tuexqh7w.fsf@gnu.org> <9c04ef31-96e0-1874-7385-633435a28b5f@yandex.ru> <83lf08rk27.fsf@gnu.org> <87o854swp2.fsf@telefonica.net> <83fsqgrhb0.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="16532"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:HxLMMjgu477PWvMP6xp78jHCYNg= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 25 14:19:24 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n16xH-00049I-PG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 25 Dec 2021 14:19:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50344 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n16xG-0002Lb-Nz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 25 Dec 2021 08:19:22 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:39216) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n16vT-00019G-DZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Dec 2021 08:17:31 -0500 Original-Received: from ciao.gmane.io ([116.202.254.214]:53782) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n16vR-0003hf-Qf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Dec 2021 08:17:31 -0500 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n16vP-0001pZ-TZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Dec 2021 14:17:27 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Received-SPF: pass client-ip=116.202.254.214; envelope-from=ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; helo=ciao.gmane.io X-Spam_score_int: -15 X-Spam_score: -1.6 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:283218 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> > So you'd suggest to the OP to develop the software in the hope that >> > all of the above will happen? And if it doesn't, just agree for the >> > results to be abandoned? The OP would have to agree to that. >> >> Why oh why you don't just say "go ahead and we will look at your work >> when you have something to show" ? > > I did -- but that was before I understood what was being proposed. > The OP wanted assurance that the code will be accepted once done, Oh, I missed that part. xenodasein: is that really what you want or is there a misunderstanding here? > and > I cannot in good faith give him that, given what's being actually > proposed. Obviously you can't give that type of assurances for any proposal. >> To insist: the proposed system would have three characteristics: >> >> 1. Cross-platform (as the proposal's subject says) >> >> 2. Simplicity, compared to what we have now. >> >> 3. New graphical capabilities that will make possible new high-level >> features. >> >> I don't know why you keep ignoring point 3, which is the most important, >> and reduce the proposal to "oh, someone wants to add one more graphical >> backend." > > I'm not ignoring anything. You, OTOH, ignore both what is being > proposed and the rest of the discussion. In effect, you are talking > about an entirely different proposal, one about which I said it > _would_ make sense. Well, maybe I'm thinking on what *I* would like to see instead on what the OP is actually proposing. xenodasein: would you say that my 3 points above fully describe your proposal?