Re: Custom vs. specifier terminology in lisp/faces.el
>>>> "Jan" == Jan Vroonhof
<vroonhof(a)math.ethz.ch> writes:
Jan> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull(a)sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> writes:
> OK, I'll look at this. Missing tags shouldn't be a
problem,
> Custom can define its own. Possibly there's something missing
> in the semantics of specifiers, or maybe Hrvoje just didn't
> like the apparent bloat.
Jan> I think one of the problems is that the current specifier
Jan> implementation is slow.
And probably can be greatly improved. But the functionality
implemented there is enormous and inherently complex. And at least
it's already implemented in C. I don't think implementing a central
part of the user interface, namely Custom, in a way intended to
shortcut that functionality is a good idea.
If Custom is made to deal with specifiers directly, the current
interface can be maintained, mostly intact. If Custom continues to
avoid using specifiers' built-in functionality, that functionality
will have to be implemented in Lisp, possibly requiring huge changes
in the API and slower to boot.
--
University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences Telfax: +81 (298) 53-5091
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
What are those two straight lines for? "Free software rules."