Re: Unicodification of sources, part 1
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
carry?"
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!