"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
I sympathize; there are a number of people who would like to be able
to use Carbon XEmacs. I will be getting in touch with Andrew again
soon, but a distribution agreement that satisfies both Andrew's
requirements and my legal paranoia is not something you should hold
your breath waiting for. If that doesn't work out, well, I
definitely want a Carbon port, and so do some people who might even
contribute some code. But that will take several months if we can't
use Andrew's code.
Well, he also worked on the Carbon part of GNU Emacs with a copyright
assignment, but I should be surprised if reusing code parts would look
attractive, given that much of it is likely to be focused on the
totally different display engine.
Carbon (GNU) Emacs seems to work well for a lot of people, and
it's
rather likely that AUCTeX will work better with any GNU Emacs than
with XEmacs at the present time, as the AUCTeX core developers all
prefer GNU Emacs as far as I know.
Though none of the active developers use the Carbon port. However,
there are separate spinoffs called Aquamacs and Yaced, both of which
include AUCTeX. Yaced appears a sensible choice since it tracks the
pristine Emacs and AUCTeX sources more closely, and thus it might be
easier to get help from the upstream Emacs and AUCTeX developers.
Carbon XEmacs plus AUCTeX seems to be a dangerous choice. Make no
mistake: AUCTeX development has some problems with the tool bar code
with XEmacs on all platforms at the moment, but at least we have
people who are able to actually compile and check this, so it will get
fixed for the other platforms at some point of time. Carbon XEmacs
looks sufficiently different that it might or might not work then.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum