Re: Mac OS-compatible ports (was: C-g crash in C-x C-f (OSX Lion))

[YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu <mituharu@math.s.chiba-u.ac.jp>]

On 2011/12/31, at 22:22, Ted Zlatanov wrote:

> I agree with your statement, but we're not "pushing" the NS port only
> because it's for GNUstep.  It's quite usable on Mac OS X.  I said that
> "in its defense" it is compatible with GNUstep by using the Cocoa API,
> which your port isn't.  So, to make the current situation clear, the
> Mac OS port choice is between:
> 
> 1) NS port: Cocoa API, works on Mac OS X with some issues, compatible
> with GNUstep and can work there (it needs lots of work though).  Apple
> has repeatedly stated Cocoa is the preferred API for Mac OS X
> developers, especially for new software.
> 
> 2) your Carbon-based port: works on Mac OS X well, can't be compatible
> with GNUstep.  Apple has not been clear about Carbon's future, even
> though Carbon seems to be well entrenched at this point.

As I've been repeatedly saying, the Mac port uses Cocoa for its
GUI implementation.  If you call the Mac port Carbon-based, lots
of the applications including those bundled with Mac OS X such as
Safari.app should also be called Carbon-based.

(snip)

> Given those choices, the NS port seems like the best choice for
> inclusion in GNU Emacs, which is the status quo.  Are any of the facts
> I've presented inaccurate?

I'm not saying about the inclusion.  I'm just correcting negative
statements with respect to the Mac port, many of which are made
with wrong understanding about the actual situation of Mac OS X
development, or even not based on the actual use.

				     YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu
				mituharu@math.s.chiba-u.ac.jp