Re: XEmacs Module (was Re: [VETO] Re: XEmacs-21.4.5 ...)
>>>> "Yoshiki" == Yoshiki Hayashi
<yoshiki(a)xemacs.org> writes:
> Then why not write the whole thing in Lisp in the first place?
> (Yes, you mentioned real-time apps, already.) This is pretty
> much a non- starter AFAICS. I wouldn't even bother to write it
> up, if I were you.
Yoshiki> My primary motivation to write module is to provide glue
Yoshiki> code between libraries written in C and Emacs Lisp. To
Yoshiki> make glue code as XEmacs version independent as possible,
Yoshiki> we need standard API and it must be free from internal
Yoshiki> details.
Well, I've looked at the postgres and input method files. I tend to
agree with Andrew that changes there (w.r.t. XEmacs interfaces) will
be quite few over time. It's only when a module does hard stuff that
the module writer doesn't want to _do_ in Lisp, but needs to interact
with Lisp, that XEmacs APIs will be annoying to keep up with.
And the input-methods are not obvious candidates for modulization
since they support socket access on sane platforms, thus can be done
in Elisp (cf tamago). This is the logical consequence of the "who
needs performance" argument.
But you're right in general that we want to kick that stuff out to
modules wherever possible.
--
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Don't ask how you can "do" free software business;
ask what your business can "do for" free software.