From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Noah Lavine Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: ELisp? Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 13:03:17 -0500 Message-ID: References: <8384F5A2-FD71-43D0-8497-59A542D0B6A5@raeburn.org> <35C54F61-5144-4C54-808C-4A430F81D8D8@raeburn.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1321121014 9627 80.91.229.12 (12 Nov 2011 18:03:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 18:03:34 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org, joakim@verona.se To: Ken Raeburn Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 12 19:03:30 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RPHvN-0005yx-U2 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 19:03:30 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47976 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RPHvH-0000vZ-UM for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 13:03:23 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:45038) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RPHvF-0000vU-TO for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 13:03:22 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RPHvE-000074-99 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 13:03:21 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-iy0-f169.google.com ([209.85.210.169]:48583) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RPHvE-00006u-2g for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 13:03:20 -0500 Original-Received: by iaek3 with SMTP id k3so3487972iae.0 for ; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 10:03:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=sYXkFJVZdxbv/0NPLgBL1GQeLsXGanRRFmMAnU8N0xo=; b=pAIiSRyFMJJefefGtNNLqKTo+Dms/HyxkcMVPIUcvuWe6JfLsTadaA2LdsblCdrQ+x lpiCY5E863dz0iszqx2Tkg9fD+vTMWzzI+t61yd21bswAXY3PE4MoIi2Jz3M+GRnF4m2 AxHRlLf0ctQCSWrgRNkO2tp6Og9M1J8M1vuOM= Original-Received: by 10.42.155.74 with SMTP id t10mr16982969icw.49.1321120997653; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 10:03:17 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.42.136.68 with HTTP; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 10:03:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <35C54F61-5144-4C54-808C-4A430F81D8D8@raeburn.org> X-Google-Sender-Auth: BS1qcmjfaXfwfF9oLqyP2hcnMKI X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 209.85.210.169 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:12889 Archived-At: > Hmm... this touches on a political issue I'd been avoiding thinking about= . =A0Namely, adding Guile to Emacs, with Guile's new FFI support, would mak= e dynamically loading new executable code into Emacs easy, technically, inc= luding non-GPL code written specifically to extend Emacs. =A0There's been a= lot of resistance to that in the past. =A0See for example http://lists.gnu= .org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2003-07/msg00403.html . I haven't thought about the rest of this yet, but I believe what will happen is probably what GCC did to solve this issue. Specifically, there is no problem loading dynamic libraries that define a symbol "this_compiles_with_gplv3", or whatever the specific symbol name is. And checking for such a symbol could certainly be done with Guile's FFI. Of course, whether Emacs wants to be able to load *other* dynamic libraries is a different question. But Emacs would have to face this issue with any FFI, and I think Emacs probably wants an FFI (based on following emacs-devel and thinking about what would make things easier for Emacs), so they can't avoid these questions anyway. So at least Guile isn't making things worse. Noah