Ar an fichiú lá de mí Meitheamh, scríobh Stephen J. Turnbull:
> Aidan> I think the best way to support Unicode on 21.4 and SXEmacs
> Aidan> would be to port over Ben’s 21.5 Unicode support,
> I tend to disagree. The 21.5 Unicode support is seriously twisted
> around Windows support and the whole Mule infrastructure.
What? No. Its Windows support has always been irrelevant to me as a Unix
user, it has never got in my way, and it’s much, much better, faster, and
saner code than is Mule-UCS or the GNU approach.
It’s oriented towards Mule, sure, but Mule is what we have.
> SXEmacs doesn't want any Windows baggage, and probably could benefit from
> losing Mule, too. 90% of the Mule-related C code seems to be devoted to
> variable-width character gymnastics.
Much like Perl, I imagine. That’s not a disadvantage in itself.
> "Why should we impose on them a burden which we ourselves are unable to
> If SXEmacs wants Unicode, I think their best path is to rip out Mule
> support and support Unicode directly with fixed-width buffers. They
> can use Ben's codecs,
Ben’s codecs aren’t finished. What Unicode-internal stuff I wrote tried to
use them, and ended up rewriting them. And that’s not finished either.
> or even port Python's architecture. They'll be unable to compete in the
> "stubborn Mule" market, sure,
They’ll be also unable to compete in the “supporting what existing
mulitlingual packages exist” market, since those packages are in the main
oriented towards Mule. That’s a bit of a minus.
> but do they really want to when there's both GNU Emacs and XEmacs to
> serve that niche? Only my two yen, of course; but if Steve et cie. are
> interested in my opinion, that's it.
Santa Maradona, priez pour moi!