John Tobey <jtobey(a)channel1.com&gt; writes: Like others, I cannot see how you can you can draw these conclusions. I must have missed a lot messages. I can see one part of the debating turning to some flamage, but that seems to be the tangent of linking everything into the executable always. With which you agree. And even if there is some flamage from some don't forget that 1. all the disadvantages of e-mail discussion with tends to get more heated than the argument actually is 2. It is only some. We are not one group that goes off and agree on something and then start flaming you. You also see the "internal" discussion making at the same time. Everybody seems to agree that making it module is a good idea. I think it is even possible to make the hooks such that you can make it look to the outside as if there actually was a perlmacs even if XEmacs has to go off and load the Perl module first. If you want to do it at as a C modules. That is fine by me. Just submit patches that implement the necessary hooks that allow more language binding. I am sure these have a good chance of getting applied. That was what the C module interface is for. To allow breaking up the huge feeping creaturism that XEmacs is into to more maintainable bits. Putting a Perl interpreter into the main code base is some what opposite to that. Of course you will still get points of critique then like 1. The perl binding is weak. Q: Why do C module and not just exec() Perl? 2. The binding is strong. That means the modules are allowed deep connection into the main C internals. This will give maintenance problems for sure and thus, Q: Is it worth it? I think these reservations are justified. How ever I also think some of these questions can be answered convincingly. The moral of the story is: Don't take heated discussion here as a "No". It is more of a positive sign for such big changes. If you think the "XEmacs team" (whatever that means), is discriminating against Perl you should go and read the archive to see the discussions about binding Guile. And no they were _not_ unanonymously positive. Jan