Re: Contributing LLVM.org patches to gud.el

[David Kastrup]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

>> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
>> Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 21:40:20 -0500
>> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
>> 
>> > In particular, the only harm to Emacs is that I've been unable to
>> > study the GCC AST issue for a whole month.  Please do not exaggerate.
>> 
>> You seem not to have even understood that your insistence has compelled
>> David Engster to stop working on GCC-based code completion support
>> for CEDET.
>
> FWIW, I think David made a mistake when he gave up.

Running out of motivation is not a choice.  And anyway, Richard
explicitly stated that he wanted lots of time for his resentment over
the discussion to abate before he would even start discussing the issue
with people he trusts.  So it will be a considerable amount of time
before David even has a chance of being informed whether his work will
end up in the wastebin.  That sounds like a solid reason to rather work
on something else to me.

> I faced a similar disheartening intention (for quite different, but
> still political) reasons when I worked on bidi support.  I decided to
> disregard and proceed, and the result is before your eyes.
>
> There's nothing like working code to convince people.

As far as I remember, company-mode had working code for LLVM-based
completion.  And we are currently just seeing a veto on integration of
working initial LLDB support into gud.el.

> Free Software is about freedom of developers as well.

Not at its core.  But it would make for a better fit.

-- 
David Kastrup