DLL support, Re: Emacs' Future
- First Post
- Replies
- Stats
-
Go to
- ----- 2024 -----
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2023 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2022 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2021 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2020 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2019 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2018 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2017 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2016 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2015 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2014 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2013 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2012 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2011 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2010 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2009 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2008 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2007 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2006 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2005 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2004 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2003 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2002 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2001 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2000 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 1999 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 1998 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to comp.emacs as well.
Dave Love <d.love(a)dl.ac.uk> writes:
-- is still expected to happen at some stage (says Handa). Oh, and
20.5 should support dynamic loading of object files consistently with
XEmacs' implementation -- Bill Perry be praised, as always.
Hmmm.. Somebody is just contributing a whole new DLL support module to
XEmacs. It would be a pity that if for once there is effort going on
to keep the two more or less in line the XEmacs side would screw it
up.
IMHO this a major reason to stay with the old method for XEmacs or
alternatively that the new implementation be sent to RMS for inclusion
in stead.
Jan
Jan Vroonhof writes:
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to comp.emacs as well.
Dave Love <d.love(a)dl.ac.uk> writes:
> -- is still expected to happen at some stage (says Handa). Oh, and
> 20.5 should support dynamic loading of object files consistently with
> XEmacs' implementation -- Bill Perry be praised, as always.
Hmmm.. Somebody is just contributing a whole new DLL support module to
XEmacs. It would be a pity that if for once there is effort going on
to keep the two more or less in line the XEmacs side would screw it
up.
If the new method is code, use it. The DLL code is new enough
that almost nothing is using it. So this is the time to make
radical changes, before historical usage sets everything in
stone. RMS would gladly hang a boat anchor around our necks
whenever he can, so ignore him. Absolutely do not condition
acceptance of code on whether RMS accepts it. XEmacs exists
today because people got sick of arguing with him. Forget
compatibility with GNU emacs, make it insanely great.
On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 09:15:57PM +0200, Jan Vroonhof wrote:
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to comp.emacs as well.
Dave Love <d.love(a)dl.ac.uk> writes:
> -- is still expected to happen at some stage (says Handa). Oh, and
> 20.5 should support dynamic loading of object files consistently with
> XEmacs' implementation -- Bill Perry be praised, as always.
Hmmm.. Somebody is just contributing a whole new DLL support module to
XEmacs. It would be a pity that if for once there is effort going on
to keep the two more or less in line the XEmacs side would screw it
up.
IMHO this a major reason to stay with the old method for XEmacs or
alternatively that the new implementation be sent to RMS for inclusion
in stead.
You mean GNU Emacs 20.5? If so, then I dont mind contributing my changes
to the FSF, I just wont get into a fight over it, and Stallman and I are
already at odds. The stuff in XEmacs will load modules, but it wont do
anything WITH them. The work I am doing is far more complete, including
full docs on how to use it. I do not keep track of what happens in GNU
Emacs any more. Once my changes are complete for XEmacs, I can certainly
TRY and make them work in FSFmacs. If someone else is doing DLL type stuff
for GNU Emacs, it would be nice if they could contact me. Maybe we can pool
our efforts.
--
J. Kean Johnston | "Every day, computers are making people easier
Engineer, SPG | to use" -- Source unknown.
Santa Cruz, CA +----------------------------------------------------------
Tel: 831-427-7569 Fax: 831-429-1887 E-mail: jkj(a)sco.com
"J. Kean Johnston" <jkj(a)sco.com> writes:
and Stallman and I are already at odds.
RMS rarely lets disagreement carry over from one issue to another.
I suggest you present him for what you have, tell him that is what
XEmacs will use (rather than wmperrys stuff), and ask if he wants it
too. If he doesn't, don't spend more time on him.
9399
days inactive
9400
days old
3 comments
4 participants
tags (0)
participants (4)
-
Jan Vroonhof -
Kean Johnston -
Kyle Jones -
Per Abrahamsen