[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: request to reconsider libnettle/libhogweed

From: Ted Zlatanov
Subject: Re: request to reconsider libnettle/libhogweed
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 13:33:07 -0500
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux)

On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 09:58:57 -0800 Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote: 

PE> On 03/02/2017 06:59 AM, Ted Zlatanov wrote:
>> * we already link to GnuTLS, which means those C functions are available
>> already.

PE> If Emacs's module system were always present and worked well, this could be
PE> supported via a module that consisted entirely of glue, i.e., a module that
PE> merely exposes C functions already present in Emacs. Since the module system
PE> isn't guaranteed, though, it may be better to create new built-in Elisp
PE> functions for this, at least for now.

There won't be anything in these functions that precludes moving them.

PE> Is there some way that we can say "these functions are built-in now, but 
may be
PE> moved to a module later"? If not, perhaps there should be.

I'll be happy to annotate them as needed, but I don't know who will care
about such annotations? Perhaps it's better to mark the functions as
dependent on a particular Emacs feature, sort of like
`gnutls-available-p' but as a per-function tag.

On Thu, 02 Mar 2017 17:55:07 +0200 Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote: 

EZ> Please show the patch, perhaps after updating it to match the current
EZ> master, and let's discuss then.

That's the technical side, and I'll gladly do it if John agrees it's
acceptable in principle. I'd rather not spend hours on it otherwise.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]