Re: C-g crash in C-x C-f (OSX Lion)

[chad]

On Dec 19, 2011, at 5:12 PM, YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu wrote:

Which is in your mind when you speak "low-level functionality in
Carbon", C APIs in general or the Carbon framework (i.e.,
/System/Library/Frameworks/Carbon.framework/)?  The latter does not
include Core Foundation, Core Graphics, Core Text, or Image I/O, all
of which are C APIs supported and legitimate even in iOS.

I'll admit that my mac development experience ended about ten years ago, but my reading of the notes from then and now both suggest that Carbon is a Toolbox replacement/bridge tool, and that it is being phased out over time. I believe that your information is more up-to-date than mine, but my reading of the notes on Carbon seems to state clearly that the entire thing is deprecated and will eventually go away.  I trust you when you say that this is not a practical concern for the Mac port today. Do you believe that it is also not a practical concern for main-line Emacs over the next few years?

[…] I guess whether the NS port is sufficient or not

would depend on the personal usage pattern.  Especially, those who
heavily use flyspell-mode would find the NS port insufficient.

Several years ago I moved from being primarily a programmer to primarily writing (structured) english text.  I use flyspell-mode and org-mode more or less constantly (a quick look suggest that I've written at least 150k words using this combination this year). 

What problems do you see with flyspell-mode that I don't see?  Maybe I don't know what I'm missing. :-)

Also, I think I've been making rather active and valuable feedbacks in
both bug reporting and bug fixing especially on the platform-specific
part of Emacs, for the bugs I found through the development of the Mac
port.

Absolutely!  I did not intend anything I said to imply otherwise, or to impugn your valuable contributions to Emacs. I simply meant to point out that the Mac port is intentionally and, it seems, permanently `behind' the leading edge of Emacs development.  Since it does not appear that that situation will ever change, it is (at least somewhat) counter-productive to recommend to emacs developers on the emacs-devel mailing list that developers switch to an older (but stable) fork, rather than work on improving the mainline.

    YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu
address@hidden

*Chad