Re: Wherein I argue for the inclusion of libnettle in Emacs 24.5

[Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>]

On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 08:03:25 -0500 Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote: 

>> He explained his objections earlier: against OpenPGP implementation,
>> prefers FFI, needs use cases.

SM> Good summary, indeed, thank you.

I promise I won't try to implement OpenPGP in the core.  I may write an
ELPA package to do it.  I may try to create "secret" strings in the
core, but I wouldn't even contemplate doing it without prior discussion
and review.

We have several use cases now, not just from me, posted in this thread.

I believe tight integration (at the C level, without FFI) will make
exploits against the encryption primitives less likely and will make
them more robust.  I'm asking you to consider that GnuTLS might be a
valid exception to the general move to FFI because it's a facility, not
a feature.

>> In the past Emacs has rejected functionality because it was against the
>> goals of the FSF and the GNU project, not because it was deemed
>> amateurish.

SM> We do try to keep the core maintainable, which implies trying to keep
SM> "amateurish" code out of it.  It also implies not adding stuff to it just
SM> so someone can play around with that new feature (tho it does happen,
SM> since it's always difficult to predict precisely how features will be
SM> used).

Right, I understand and sympathize.

I am asking for an exception, with the understanding that it won't
justify others, and with the justification that it's adding primitives
from a library we already include, because I think it will benefit users
and developers in the long run.

SM> But indeed, Elisp allows "amateurish" code, and we're happy to make it
SM> possible for amateurs to write their own code and get something useful
SM> from it.  We all have to start somewhere.

Yes.  In addition to the FSF and GNU goals, this creative freedom is
what makes Emacs great, IMHO.

Ted