XEmacs Carbon icons and GPLv3.
Stephen J. Turnbull
stephen at xemacs.org
Mon May 16 23:34:19 EDT 2011
Aidan Kehoe writes:
> > Personally, I think that if it's good enough for people using it now,
> > we should leave it, but that further effort should be directed
> > elsewhere (except for fixing reported bugs as time and expertise
> > allow).
> Leave it, as in continue with the repository available, or leave it, as in
> continue with the merges as I’ve been doing?
I had in mind the former. But that's up to you.
> > I'd like to see a Cocoa port, but apparently (cf emacs-devel traffic)
> > that would be as much work to do well as Windows was. The display and
> > event models of "modern" GUI systems seem designed to prevent Emacs
> > from being Emacs....
> Emacs was developed on a TTY, where the editor redisplay has comparatively
> little control over anything. I really don’t understand why the various
> non-X11 GUI implementations don’t abdicate more of redisplay in favour of
> the OS; Choi’s did, and that was a fine start.
I don't understand what you're talking about. AIUI (I read *all* that
code closely, but superficially, as is required for copyright
analysis), Choi's redisplay was a quite faithful port of the Qt code
(which is why the license problem exists), and very similar to the
whole family of X11 redisplays. The event-handling code (eg, keyboard
and mouse) was simpler but also had bugs (eg, situations where C-g was
ignored that wouldn't happen with X11). I'm not sure how good GTK and
Qt are on that front.
Agreed, it would be nice if Pango could replace home-grown Mule code
in redisplay, but my experience with Havoc Pennington's code has been
way less than pleasant. We'll see how that goes as Jeff's work
More information about the XEmacs-Beta