Geoffrey> So you don't like Perl. Fine. Who cares what you languages you like, Geoffrey> anyway? So you don't want XEmacs hooked up to too many different Geoffrey> things. Tough. It's going to happen whether you like it or not. Geoffrey> Maybe you've forgotten what the GPL is all about? After seeing what Geoffrey> has been said to John, I feel certain that my own purposes in Geoffrey> inquiring about Elisp/C extension coupling would not impress you In the decades that emacs has been around, there's only been two forks that I know of: epoch and xemacs, and epoch is dead. I think that means forking emacs into something viable and maintainable is extremely hard. In fact it never ceases to amaze me what xemacs can do. And the effort that volunteers put into it to keep it going. My sincerest thanks to them for allowing me to use such a wonderful editor.[1] Geoffrey> either. So what's your goal? To drive away people toting uncouth Geoffrey> baggage? Or to make XEmacs a flexible and powerful work environment? You mean XEmacs isn't already a flexible and powerful work environment? How does adding Perl make it more so? By the way, I'm not opposed to these additions (I have my own uninformed biases against perl). I'd just like the core people to keep working on what their working on without being overly distracted by having to support the language-and-extension-tool-of-the-day. Ray Footnotes: [1] If any of you are in RTP, drop me a line. Let's have a beer!