From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Fascinating interview by Richard Stallman on Russia TV Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:53:53 +0200 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <87oce4hmda.fsf__38138.5607448921$1291847641$gmane$org@lola.goethe.zz> References: <4db5e9a2-1d00-4b02-b988-17829a537aab@x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <1f6bd9bb-f7c6-4d0c-9936-d51b881da156@s24g2000pri.googlegroups.com> <87d3ulj30c.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87iq4d6any.fsf@atthis.clsnet.nl> <1f12874a-8683-40b2-9d7c-af5b801963a5@k39g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> <87wrstgsgj.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <6e469332-eb46-4b81-aee3-10e5aa4e92cb@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1291847641 26645 80.91.229.12 (8 Dec 2010 22:34:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 22:34:01 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Dec 08 23:33:56 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PQSa7-0002TB-Hl for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 23:33:52 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47012 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PQSa6-00087O-Ha for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 17:33:50 -0500 Original-Path: usenet.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!news2.euro.net!newsfeed.freenet.ag!news.netcologne.de!ramfeed1.netcologne.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help, comp.lang.lisp, comp.emacs, comp.lang.c, comp.lang.python X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:t2wb9kKEVxnSiq+uaKQAcgG81zY= Original-Lines: 409 Original-NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Jul 2010 16:53:57 CEST Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 614b7734.newsspool3.arcor-online.net Original-X-Trace: DXC=75MOK`al0oRJX[j3[MOo``DKHgQ>dT=1CG Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Original-Xref: usenet.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:179836 comp.lang.lisp:290428 comp.emacs:100238 comp.lang.c:978206 comp.lang.python:638455 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:76136 Archived-At: Emmy Noether writes: > On Jul 18, 12:27 am, David Kastrup wrote: > >> What did you ever do to _deserve_ others working for you? > > What did we do to deserve him to write that elisp manual of 800+ > pages ? NOTHING. So once one gives you something, you demand everything? > He gave it to us in the hope that his software will spread like a > VIRUS. Yup. It is called "culture". It is _supposed_ to spread exponentially. That's what the peculiar brain structure of humans is good for. Communicating knowledge instead of inheriting it. That's the fundamental advantage we have over other animals. Not something lightly given up. > A person arrives in the state of a newbie and wants to exit in a state > of having made a contribution to FSF. That's the problem of the person. It has not been a goal of the GNU project to turn every person into somebody useful. They have the freedom to try, getting everything for their start that anybody else has available. > How can one do it without adequate documentation ? Emacs development is active, so there are people considering the documentation adequate for starting to work on Emacs. > Xah Lee has been complaining for a year. First you deprive people of > ESSENTIAL documentation to contribute. You can't "deprive" anybody of anything that is not there to start with. > DEFUN ("or", For, Sor, 0, UNEVALLED, 0, > "Eval args until one of them yields non-NIL, then return that value. > \n\ > The remaining args are not evalled at all.\n\ > If all args return NIL, return NIL.") > (args) > Lisp_Object args; > { > register Lisp_Object val; > Lisp_Object args_left; > struct gcpro gcpro1; > > if (NULL(args)) > return Qnil; > > args_left = args; > GCPRO1 (args_left); > > do > { > val = Feval (Fcar (args_left)); > if (!NULL (val)) > break; > args_left = Fcdr (args_left); > } > while (!NULL(args_left)); > > UNGCPRO; > return val; > } > > I saw that on comp.lang.c and found no one capable of explaining it. If you see other context-free stuff on comp.lang.c, the situation will not be different. The above code is rather trivial. But you'll find the respective parts explained in the Emacs Lisp manual. In fact, the above is likely extracted from exactly there, from (info "(elisp) Writing Emacs Primitives") I append the whole at the bottom to not interrupt the flow of non-thought. > And where does the manual explain the C struct or ADT of the basic > cons cell ? which file has the definition ? where is his eval_quote > function definition ? eval_quote? What's that? > Basically, Richard Mathew Stall man is a STALLER of PROGRESS. He > expected the XEMACS people to EXPLAIN HIM EVERY SINGLE line of code. > What did he do to expect all this ? He was the maintainer of upstream Emacs, and it was his decision what code was going there. And he had to keep maintainability in mind. Something which was less of a priority with XEmacs developers, and likely part of the reason that they are running out of fresh blood much worse than Emacs these days. > He was even paid money , as claimed by the XEMACS people. > > What did he do to deserve and EXPECT a line by line explanation from > them ?????!!!!!! ANSWER this question and dont run away !!!!!! There was nothing to "deserve". It was his job to keep Emacs going forward, and his opinion and decision that throwing the Lucid Emacs code in would not have been good in the long run. It has not been good for XEmacs in the long run. Whether it would have been better or worse for a grand unified Emacs, noone will ever know. He decided to play it safe given the information he had at that time, and Emacs is still there and going forward. In spite of trolls like you spouting abuse by the hundreds. More than can be said for many other projects. File: elisp, Node: Writing Emacs Primitives, Next: Object Internals, Prev: Memory Usage, Up: GNU Emacs Internals E.5 Writing Emacs Primitives ============================ Lisp primitives are Lisp functions implemented in C. The details of interfacing the C function so that Lisp can call it are handled by a few C macros. The only way to really understand how to write new C code is to read the source, but we can explain some things here. An example of a special form is the definition of `or', from `eval.c'. (An ordinary function would have the same general appearance.) DEFUN ("or", For, Sor, 0, UNEVALLED, 0, doc: /* Eval args until one of them yields non-nil, then return that value. The remaining args are not evalled at all. If all args return nil, return nil. usage: (or CONDITIONS ...) */) (Lisp_Object args) { register Lisp_Object val = Qnil; struct gcpro gcpro1; GCPRO1 (args); while (CONSP (args)) { val = Feval (XCAR (args)); if (!NILP (val)) break; args = XCDR (args); } UNGCPRO; return val; } Let's start with a precise explanation of the arguments to the `DEFUN' macro. Here is a template for them: DEFUN (LNAME, FNAME, SNAME, MIN, MAX, INTERACTIVE, DOC) LNAME This is the name of the Lisp symbol to define as the function name; in the example above, it is `or'. FNAME This is the C function name for this function. This is the name that is used in C code for calling the function. The name is, by convention, `F' prepended to the Lisp name, with all dashes (`-') in the Lisp name changed to underscores. Thus, to call this function from C code, call `For'. Remember that the arguments must be of type `Lisp_Object'; various macros and functions for creating values of type `Lisp_Object' are declared in the file `lisp.h'. SNAME This is a C variable name to use for a structure that holds the data for the subr object that represents the function in Lisp. This structure conveys the Lisp symbol name to the initialization routine that will create the symbol and store the subr object as its definition. By convention, this name is always FNAME with `F' replaced with `S'. MIN This is the minimum number of arguments that the function requires. The function `or' allows a minimum of zero arguments. MAX This is the maximum number of arguments that the function accepts, if there is a fixed maximum. Alternatively, it can be `UNEVALLED', indicating a special form that receives unevaluated arguments, or `MANY', indicating an unlimited number of evaluated arguments (the equivalent of `&rest'). Both `UNEVALLED' and `MANY' are macros. If MAX is a number, it may not be less than MIN and it may not be greater than eight. INTERACTIVE This is an interactive specification, a string such as might be used as the argument of `interactive' in a Lisp function. In the case of `or', it is 0 (a null pointer), indicating that `or' cannot be called interactively. A value of `""' indicates a function that should receive no arguments when called interactively. If the value begins with a `(', the string is evaluated as a Lisp form. DOC This is the documentation string. It uses C comment syntax rather than C string syntax because comment syntax requires nothing special to include multiple lines. The `doc:' identifies the comment that follows as the documentation string. The `/*' and `*/' delimiters that begin and end the comment are not part of the documentation string. If the last line of the documentation string begins with the keyword `usage:', the rest of the line is treated as the argument list for documentation purposes. This way, you can use different argument names in the documentation string from the ones used in the C code. `usage:' is required if the function has an unlimited number of arguments. All the usual rules for documentation strings in Lisp code (*note Documentation Tips::) apply to C code documentation strings too. After the call to the `DEFUN' macro, you must write the argument list that every C function must have, including the types for the arguments. For a function with a fixed maximum number of arguments, declare a C argument for each Lisp argument, and give them all type `Lisp_Object'. When a Lisp function has no upper limit on the number of arguments, its implementation in C actually receives exactly two arguments: the first is the number of Lisp arguments, and the second is the address of a block containing their values. They have types `int' and `Lisp_Object *'. Within the function `For' itself, note the use of the macros `GCPRO1' and `UNGCPRO'. `GCPRO1' is used to "protect" a variable from garbage collection--to inform the garbage collector that it must look in that variable and regard its contents as an accessible object. GC protection is necessary whenever you call `Feval' or anything that can directly or indirectly call `Feval'. At such a time, any Lisp object that this function may refer to again must be protected somehow. It suffices to ensure that at least one pointer to each object is GC-protected; that way, the object cannot be recycled, so all pointers to it remain valid. Thus, a particular local variable can do without protection if it is certain that the object it points to will be preserved by some other pointer (such as another local variable which has a `GCPRO')(1). Otherwise, the local variable needs a `GCPRO'. The macro `GCPRO1' protects just one local variable. If you want to protect two variables, use `GCPRO2' instead; repeating `GCPRO1' will not work. Macros `GCPRO3', `GCPRO4', `GCPRO5', and `GCPRO6' also exist. All these macros implicitly use local variables such as `gcpro1'; you must declare these explicitly, with type `struct gcpro'. Thus, if you use `GCPRO2', you must declare `gcpro1' and `gcpro2'. Alas, we can't explain all the tricky details here. `UNGCPRO' cancels the protection of the variables that are protected in the current function. It is necessary to do this explicitly. Built-in functions that take a variable number of arguments actually accept two arguments at the C level: the number of Lisp arguments, and a `Lisp_Object *' pointer to a C vector containing those Lisp arguments. This C vector may be part of a Lisp vector, but it need not be. The responsibility for using `GCPRO' to protect the Lisp arguments from GC if necessary rests with the caller in this case, since the caller allocated or found the storage for them. You must not use C initializers for static or global variables unless the variables are never written once Emacs is dumped. These variables with initializers are allocated in an area of memory that becomes read-only (on certain operating systems) as a result of dumping Emacs. *Note Pure Storage::. Do not use static variables within functions--place all static variables at top level in the file. This is necessary because Emacs on some operating systems defines the keyword `static' as a null macro. (This definition is used because those systems put all variables declared static in a place that becomes read-only after dumping, whether they have initializers or not.) Defining the C function is not enough to make a Lisp primitive available; you must also create the Lisp symbol for the primitive and store a suitable subr object in its function cell. The code looks like this: defsubr (&SUBR-STRUCTURE-NAME); Here SUBR-STRUCTURE-NAME is the name you used as the third argument to `DEFUN'. If you add a new primitive to a file that already has Lisp primitives defined in it, find the function (near the end of the file) named `syms_of_SOMETHING', and add the call to `defsubr' there. If the file doesn't have this function, or if you create a new file, add to it a `syms_of_FILENAME' (e.g., `syms_of_myfile'). Then find the spot in `emacs.c' where all of these functions are called, and add a call to `syms_of_FILENAME' there. The function `syms_of_FILENAME' is also the place to define any C variables that are to be visible as Lisp variables. `DEFVAR_LISP' makes a C variable of type `Lisp_Object' visible in Lisp. `DEFVAR_INT' makes a C variable of type `int' visible in Lisp with a value that is always an integer. `DEFVAR_BOOL' makes a C variable of type `int' visible in Lisp with a value that is either `t' or `nil'. Note that variables defined with `DEFVAR_BOOL' are automatically added to the list `byte-boolean-vars' used by the byte compiler. If you define a file-scope C variable of type `Lisp_Object', you must protect it from garbage-collection by calling `staticpro' in `syms_of_FILENAME', like this: staticpro (&VARIABLE); Here is another example function, with more complicated arguments. This comes from the code in `window.c', and it demonstrates the use of macros and functions to manipulate Lisp objects. DEFUN ("coordinates-in-window-p", Fcoordinates_in_window_p, Scoordinates_in_window_p, 2, 2, "xSpecify coordinate pair: \nXExpression which evals to window: ", "Return non-nil if COORDINATES is in WINDOW.\n\ COORDINATES is a cons of the form (X . Y), X and Y being distances\n\ ... If they are on the border between WINDOW and its right sibling,\n\ `vertical-line' is returned.") (coordinates, window) register Lisp_Object coordinates, window; { int x, y; CHECK_LIVE_WINDOW (window, 0); CHECK_CONS (coordinates, 1); x = XINT (Fcar (coordinates)); y = XINT (Fcdr (coordinates)); switch (coordinates_in_window (XWINDOW (window), &x, &y)) { case 0: /* NOT in window at all. */ return Qnil; case 1: /* In text part of window. */ return Fcons (make_number (x), make_number (y)); case 2: /* In mode line of window. */ return Qmode_line; case 3: /* On right border of window. */ return Qvertical_line; default: abort (); } } Note that C code cannot call functions by name unless they are defined in C. The way to call a function written in Lisp is to use `Ffuncall', which embodies the Lisp function `funcall'. Since the Lisp function `funcall' accepts an unlimited number of arguments, in C it takes two: the number of Lisp-level arguments, and a one-dimensional array containing their values. The first Lisp-level argument is the Lisp function to call, and the rest are the arguments to pass to it. Since `Ffuncall' can call the evaluator, you must protect pointers from garbage collection around the call to `Ffuncall'. The C functions `call0', `call1', `call2', and so on, provide handy ways to call a Lisp function conveniently with a fixed number of arguments. They work by calling `Ffuncall'. `eval.c' is a very good file to look through for examples; `lisp.h' contains the definitions for some important macros and functions. If you define a function which is side-effect free, update the code in `byte-opt.el' which binds `side-effect-free-fns' and `side-effect-and-error-free-fns' so that the compiler optimizer knows about it. ---------- Footnotes ---------- (1) Formerly, strings were a special exception; in older Emacs versions, every local variable that might point to a string needed a `GCPRO'. > He is prone to forgetting like all mortals and if he is prolific to > write that 900 page manual, I am sure he has hidden notes that he has > not released. Where was he recording the line by line explanation he > was receiving from the XEMACS people ? If not in his own very personal > version ??? What makes you think he received any such explanation? Why would not the XEmacs people, after writing such explanations, put them in their own code and manuals? Your conspiracy theories just stink. > Answer these very strong arguments ??? Ok, so they stink strongly. > What did he deserve to get the XEMACS people's explanations ? AND why > is he INCAPABLE of building upon the XEMACS work ??? This is all about > documentation, professional jealousies of these mean spirited people > with double standards. Send him a CC of this thread. I expect him to > explain some of these issues of documentation. I quoted the above part from the documentation. I do not consider this sort of shit worth his attention and certainly won't forward it, lending it credibility. It is not like he has a secret Email address or something. I should hope he would have the prudence to just throw crap like the above away should he receive it from some anonymous idiot not willing to sign his name under his brain farts. -- David Kastrup