Re: [ANNOUNCE] rep-gtk-0.18.4 (other scheme..)

Hi, dear rep philosophers.

On Sun, 3 May 2009 23:00:25 +0800, "Chengqi(Lars) Song" wrote:
> I think im running off topic but I'm a little bit curious about
> 'rep': why should we maintain a scheme implementation just for this
> software? 

It's a bit of faq, but never mind, discussion is more than welcome :)
(Only lisp I know is elisp and rep)

On Mon, 4 May 2009 10:51:04 +0800, "Chengqi(Lars) Song" wrote:
> so is there anyway to use them directly instead of maintaining rep
> and rep-gtk, which could be a heavy work when gtk updates?

a) Rep has many defects, but it's stable and works, well, at least
at permissible level for our purpose.

b) Because of its stability, the maintenance is not so hard. (I
understand so, but correct ? > Chris 
I don't know gtk+ 3 at all.)

c) One reason that librep and rep-gtk need work is that their
dev has been halted for years, so we've got to fill in gaps
in that inactive period.

d) On the contrary, Sawfish's todo list is long, and growing.

e) Transition is really hard. Who takes it? We're currently not
ample in man power, so any available work should be spent in core sawfish 
development, rather than the hassle for lisp transition.

But yes, Lars, what you say is really natural, so almost anyone can't
help asking about it.

Thank you for your interest in sawfish, Lars! Your questions are
really worth asking. (I wanted to know two-stroke key binding :)

Teika (Teika kazura)

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