Re: Emacs 23 Mac port

[YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu]

>>>>> On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 09:23:54 -0600, Ted Zlatanov <address@hidden> said:

DC> Thanks for continuing to do this work. I still find the AppKit
DC> port to be more reliable and useful than the NS one, and I hope it
DC> makes it into mainline one day.

> IIRC the AppKit port depends on the Carbon libraries and so is not a
> good long-term solution.  Mitsuharu-san, is that still correct?

Not sure about "the Appkit port".

If you mean Emacs 22 Carbon+Appkit port, then I maintain this just
because I'm using it in our classroom.

If you mean Emacs 23 Mac port, see the following message in
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2010-06/msg00148.html

>>>>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 09:53:09 +0900, YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu <address@hidden> 
>>>>> said:

>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 17:28:25 -0400, David Reitter <address@hidden> said:

>>> uses Cocoa and it can be compiled as 64bit executable.

>> I see a lot of Carbon in there, unlike in the NS port.

> As long as a program runs as a 64-bit binary, which implies its GUI
> part is implemented with Cocoa, I don't think the (selective) use of
> Carbon is problematic.  If it were, then Apple would have excluded
> it from the 64-bit version of Carbon like they did for its GUI part.
> Sometimes Carbon is useful for finer control, and sometimes it is
> necessary to provide compatibility functions for older versions of
> Mac OS X where Cocoa hadn't provided enough replacements.

> Not using Carbon would be meaningful for the NS port, because it has
> to support GNUstep, too.  But for 64-bit GUI Mac programs, it does
> not make sense to prefer Cocoa-only to a hybrid of Carbon and Cocoa.
> People would neither call Safari a Carbon app nor complain its use
> for the reason that the program is linked with the Carbon framework.

FWIW, half of applications that are bundled with Mac OS X 10.6 are
linked with the Carbon framework.

                                     YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu
                                address@hidden