[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Emacs Lisp's future
From: |
Stephen J. Turnbull |
Subject: |
Re: Emacs Lisp's future |
Date: |
Sun, 28 Sep 2014 00:34:50 +0900 |
David Kastrup writes:
> In short, it is not likely we are talking about a no-brainer regarding
> rebasing MULE on something else. If we were, it would appear to me that
> XEmacs would have had more to gain from such a step than Emacs, and
> there is likely some reason that they chose not to do so.
The reason for using Mule code in XEmacs in the first place was that
by the time anybody who understood multilingual processing because
they suffered from from it, Sun had already awarded the contract to
Ben et al and it was a done deal. Since then, we haven't fixed it
because I'm at best slow and mistake-prone as a programmer, and nobody
else really cares. Believe me, I *want* to do it.
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, (continued)
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Stefan Monnier, 2014/09/27
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/09/27
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Stefan Monnier, 2014/09/27
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/09/27
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Stefan Monnier, 2014/09/27
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Richard Stallman, 2014/09/28
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Stefan Monnier, 2014/09/28
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Taylan Ulrich Bayirli/Kammer, 2014/09/27
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Robin Templeton, 2014/09/27
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/09/28
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future,
Stephen J. Turnbull <=
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, K. Handa, 2014/09/29
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/09/27
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/09/26
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/09/27
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/09/27
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/09/27
Emacs Lisp's future (was: Guile emacs thread (again)), Nic Ferrier, 2014/09/17