all code that hooks into the c code arbitrarily must be in src/ so that developers
can fix it. changing this is a very *bad* design goal. if we are going to
support modules at all, we need to do it hrvoje's way. i personally think it's a
waste of time. work on improving the lisp implementation instead. e.g. the
much-cited w3 example has *never* been profiled properly, as far as i know. we
should be working towards less c code, not more.
"J. Kean Johnston" wrote:
On Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 09:37:43PM -0800, Kyle Jones wrote:
> SL Baur writes:
> > I've now spent the better part of this week porting my code from 21.1
> > to 21.2. The internal interface to XEmacs is way too much of a moving
> > target for me to consider making this code available primarily as a
> > module at this time.
> Agree. We'll have to publish an API before anyone will be
> willing to write and support non-trivial modules.
My original intention was for modules to be indistinguishable from
C code found in the src/ tree, if for no other reason, so that systems
which did not support dynamic loading could still use the code. If we
break this, I think we will have lost a good design goal.
J. Kean Johnston | "All thoughts, all passions, all delights,
| Whatever stirs this mortal frame,
Engineer, SPG | All are but ministers of Love,
Santa Cruz, CA | And feed his sacred flame."
Tel: 831-427-7569 | Samuel Taylor Coleridge - "Love"
Fax: 831-429-1887 +-----------------------------------------------------------
In order to save my hands, I am cutting back on my mail. I also write
as succinctly as possible -- please don't be offended. If you send me
mail, you _will_ get a response, but please be patient, especially for
XEmacs-related mail. If you need an immediate response and it is not
apparent in your message, please say so. Thanks for your understanding.
See also http://www.666.com/ben/typing.html