Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Python > Fascinating interview by Richard Stallman on Russia TV

Reply
Thread Tools

Fascinating interview by Richard Stallman on Russia TV

 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2010
In message
<(E-Mail Removed)>, Nick Keighley wrote:

> On 16 July, 09:24, Mark Tarver <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 15 July, 23:21, bolega <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallman-kth.html

>>
>> > RMS lecture at KTH (Sweden), 30 October 1986

>
> did you really have to post all of this...
>
> <snip>
>
>> > read more »...

>
> ...oh sorry only about a third of it...


Still totally unnecessary, though.

>> Perhaps as an antidote
>>
>> http://danweinreb.org/blog/rebuttal-...bolics-and-lmi


In other words, software that was developed at Symbolics was not given
way for free to LMI. Is that so surprising?

Which is conceding Stallman’s point.

Anyway, that wasn’t Symbolics’s “plan”; it was part of the MIT licensing
agreement, the very same one that LMI signed. LMI’s changes were all
proprietary to LMI, too.

I don’t understand this bit. The only “MIT licensing agreement” I’m aware
off _allows_ you to redistribute your copies without the source, but doesn’t
_require_ it.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Kastrup
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2010
Emmy Noether <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>> Some entity, AKA David Kastrup <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> wrote this mindboggling stuff:
>> (selectively-snipped-or-not-p)

>
>>>> Software is a puzzle and it must be explained to be able to do that,
>>>> its like a lock

>
>>> There is no unfreedom involved here. *Freedom does not hand you a free
>>> ride. *Only a free road.

>
> No one asks for a free ride. A free road is good enough.


Obviously you don't understand what you are talking about.

> Perhaps we do the same to him and break into his FSF office and leave
> a "friend" note we came to get the docs he has not released.


You can't "get" anything that has not been written.

> The concise answer: We want a free road but not a free puzzle.


You have the freedom to walk the forest you perceive. You have the
freedom to build the road that you want, in that forest.

If it is a puzzle to you, that is your own problem. It is not a puzzle
because somebody would have cut a whole into pieces and scattered them
around. It is a puzzle because nobody put it together yet.

Feel free to do so, doing others the service you want done.

> Now, dont run away from this argument and bring each and every of the
> boys from his mailing list to tackle this question. He is a manager
> and he can put the volunteers to the task of documenting, illuminating
> and revealing the operation of his softwares and its evolution.


You want a free ride, very obviously.

> He owes it to others


And you think your whining entitles you to it.

What did you ever do to _deserve_ others working for you?

--
David Kastrup
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Nick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2010
Emmy Noether <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> On Jul 7, 1:57*pm, bolega <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> "Democracy is sick in the US, government monitors your Internet"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BfCJq_zIdk&feature=fvsr
>>
>> Enjoy .....

>
> In this video, Stall man makes 4 promises to public but stalls on 2nd
> of them.


I have no idea of the rights or wrongs of this case. But I've found
through experience that when someone uses a "witty" misspelling of
someone's name, they are almost always the one in the wrong. 5 lines in
and here we are - so if your case has merit, think about whether you
want to do this.

BTW - Did you see what I did there? I snipped all the rest of the post
as it wasn't relevant. I know several people have asked you to do it,
but you seem to be having difficulty with the concept, so I thought I'd
give you a practical example.
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
 
Reply With Quote
 
Emmy Noether
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2010
On Jul 18, 12:27*am, David Kastrup <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Emmy Noether <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> >> Some entity, AKA David Kastrup <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> >> wrote this mindboggling stuff:
> >> (selectively-snipped-or-not-p)

>
> >>>> Software is a puzzle and it must be explained to be able to do that,
> >>>> its like a lock

>
> >>> There is no unfreedom involved here. *Freedom does not hand you a free
> >>> ride. *Only a free road.

>
> > No one asks for a free ride. A free road is good enough.

>
> Obviously you don't understand what you are talking about.
>
> > Perhaps we do the same to him and break into his FSF office and leave
> > a "friend" note we came to get the docs he has not released.

>
> You can't "get" anything that has not been written.
>
> > The concise answer: We want a free road but not a free puzzle.

>
> You have the freedom to walk the forest you perceive. *You have the
> freedom to build the road that you want, in that forest.
>
> If it is a puzzle to you, that is your own problem. *It is not a puzzle
> because somebody would have cut a whole into pieces and scattered them
> around. *It is a puzzle because nobody put it together yet.
>
> Feel free to do so, doing others the service you want done.
>
> > Now, dont run away from this argument and bring each and every of the
> > boys from his mailing list to tackle this question. He is a manager
> > and he can put the volunteers to the task of documenting, illuminating
> > and revealing the operation of his softwares and its evolution.

>
> You want a free ride, very obviously.
>
> > He owes it to others

>
> And you think your whining entitles you to it.


By his own admission he broke into professor's offices to help others,
ie unlock the monitors. He has tried to project an image of a saint
for freedom. Its a DECEPTION. A scoundrel has a right to be scoundrel.
But if he projects himself as a saint, then people have a right to
clear the facts.

> What did you ever do to _deserve_ others working for you?


What did we do to deserve him to write that elisp manual of 800+
pages ? NOTHING. He gave it to us in the hope that his software will
spread like a VIRUS. He had hopes for money from big companies
probably, which he must be making to pay the astronomical rent in tbe
boston/cambridge area. I can assure you that he can document all the
essentials of his program in a thin book of a few hundred pages with a
trivial amount of man-hours compared to being spent on things which
brings fewer volunteers.

It is said : A picture is worth a thousand words. Make some transition
diagrams, structures, and UML type diagrams of the operation of the
software.

> What did you ever do to _deserve_ others working for you?


Draw a diagram, A state transition diagram to understand how illogical
you are.

A person arrives in the state of a newbie and wants to exit in a state
of having made a contribution to FSF. How can one do it without
adequate documentation ? Xah Lee has been complaining for a year.
First you deprive people of ESSENTIAL documentation to contribute.
Stall man has written user manuals to effect viral spread. But he has
not written operational details to get the same viral contribution by
others. He must not want it. Yet you want to use it as a taunt as in
pot calling the kettle black ???!!!

OK, why dont you explain a few basic things, if it not a
puzzle ????!!!!

DEFUN ("or", For, Sor, 0, UNEVALLED, 0,
"Eval args until one of them yields non-NIL, then return that value.
\n\
The remaining args are not evalled at all.\n\
If all args return NIL, return NIL.")
(args)
Lisp_Object args;
{
register Lisp_Object val;
Lisp_Object args_left;
struct gcpro gcpro1;

if (NULL(args))
return Qnil;

args_left = args;
GCPRO1 (args_left);

do
{
val = Feval (Fcar (args_left));
if (!NULL (val))
break;
args_left = Fcdr (args_left);
}
while (!NULL(args_left));

UNGCPRO;
return val;
}

I saw that on comp.lang.c and found no one capable of explaining it.

And where does the manual explain the C struct or ADT of the basic
cons cell ? which file has the definition ? where is his eval_quote
function definition ?

Basically, Richard Mathew Stall man is a STALLER of PROGRESS. He
expected the XEMACS people to EXPLAIN HIM EVERY SINGLE line of code.
What did he do to expect all this ? He was even paid money , as
claimed by the XEMACS people.

What did he do to deserve and EXPECT a line by line explanation from
them ?????!!!!!! ANSWER this question and dont run away !!!!!!

He is prone to forgetting like all mortals and if he is prolific to
write that 900 page manual, I am sure he has hidden notes that he has
not released. Where was he recording the line by line explanation he
was receiving from the XEMACS people ? If not in his own very personal
version ???

Answer these very strong arguments ??? What did he deserve to get the
XEMACS people's explanations ? AND why is he INCAPABLE of building
upon the XEMACS work ??? This is all about documentation, professional
jealousies of these mean spirited people with double standards. Send
him a CC of this thread. I expect him to explain some of these issues
of documentation.

> --
> David Kastrup


 
Reply With Quote
 
Emmy Noether
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2010
On Jul 18, 1:09*am, Nick <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Emmy Noether <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> > On Jul 7, 1:57*pm, bolega <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> "Democracy is sick in the US, government monitors your Internet"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BfCJq_zIdk&feature=fvsr

>
> >> Enjoy .....

>
> > In this video, Stall man makes 4 promises to public but stalls on 2nd
> > of them.

>
> I have no idea of the rights or wrongs of this case. *But I've found
> through experience that when someone uses a "witty" misspelling of
> someone's name, they are almost always the one in the wrong. *


Huh, you forgot that the whole of GNU = Gnu Not Unix

You have double standard and you know very well whats right and whats
wrong.



> 5 lines in
> and here we are - so if your case has merit, think about whether you
> want to do this.
>
> BTW - Did you see what I did there? *I snipped all the rest of the post
> as it wasn't relevant. *I know several people have asked you to do it,
> but you seem to be having difficulty with the concept, so I thought I'd
> give you a practical example.
> --
> Online waterways route planner * * * * * *|http://canalplan.eu
> Plan trips, see photos, check facilities *|http://canalplan.org.uk


 
Reply With Quote
 
Julian Bradfield
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2010
On 2010-07-18, Emmy Noether <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> DEFUN ("or", For, Sor, 0, UNEVALLED, 0,
> "Eval args until one of them yields non-NIL, then return that value.
> \n\
> The remaining args are not evalled at all.\n\
> If all args return NIL, return NIL.")
> (args)
> Lisp_Object args;
> {
> register Lisp_Object val;
> Lisp_Object args_left;
> struct gcpro gcpro1;
>
> if (NULL(args))
> return Qnil;
>
> args_left = args;
> GCPRO1 (args_left);
>
> do
> {
> val = Feval (Fcar (args_left));
> if (!NULL (val))
> break;
> args_left = Fcdr (args_left);
> }
> while (!NULL(args_left));
>
> UNGCPRO;
> return val;
> }
>
> I saw that on comp.lang.c and found no one capable of explaining it.


What do you need explained? Other than what's already in the manual
(Gnu Emacs Internals section of the Elisp manual.)

> And where does the manual explain the C struct or ADT of the basic
> cons cell ? which file has the definition ? where is his eval_quote
> function definition ?


Try lisp.h
RMS doesn't really believe in ADTs - that's one of the main complaints
from XEmacs.
As for finding functions, I believe Emacs has commands to help with
that, but personally I just go grep eval_quote *.c
 
Reply With Quote
 
Nick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2010
Emmy Noether <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> On Jul 18, 1:09*am, Nick <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Emmy Noether <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> > On Jul 7, 1:57*pm, bolega <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >> "Democracy is sick in the US, government monitors your Internet"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BfCJq_zIdk&feature=fvsr

>>
>> >> Enjoy .....

>>
>> > In this video, Stall man makes 4 promises to public but stalls on 2nd
>> > of them.

>>
>> I have no idea of the rights or wrongs of this case. *But I've found
>> through experience that when someone uses a "witty" misspelling of
>> someone's name, they are almost always the one in the wrong. *

>
> Huh, you forgot that the whole of GNU = Gnu Not Unix
>
> You have double standard and you know very well whats right and whats
> wrong.


Ah. I see. You know my thoughts better than I do.

That means you're another nutter.

What I wrote was entirely true - I haven't read these great long posts
in any detail. I've just deleted your email unread and plonked you.
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Kastrup
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2010
Emmy Noether <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> On Jul 18, 12:27*am, David Kastrup <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> What did you ever do to _deserve_ others working for you?

>
> What did we do to deserve him to write that elisp manual of 800+
> pages ? NOTHING.


So once one gives you something, you demand everything?

> He gave it to us in the hope that his software will spread like a
> VIRUS.


Yup. It is called "culture". It is _supposed_ to spread exponentially.
That's what the peculiar brain structure of humans is good for.
Communicating knowledge instead of inheriting it. That's the
fundamental advantage we have over other animals. Not something lightly
given up.

> A person arrives in the state of a newbie and wants to exit in a state
> of having made a contribution to FSF.


That's the problem of the person. It has not been a goal of the GNU
project to turn every person into somebody useful. They have the
freedom to try, getting everything for their start that anybody else has
available.

> How can one do it without adequate documentation ?


Emacs development is active, so there are people considering the
documentation adequate for starting to work on Emacs.

> Xah Lee has been complaining for a year. First you deprive people of
> ESSENTIAL documentation to contribute.


You can't "deprive" anybody of anything that is not there to start with.

> DEFUN ("or", For, Sor, 0, UNEVALLED, 0,
> "Eval args until one of them yields non-NIL, then return that value.
> \n\
> The remaining args are not evalled at all.\n\
> If all args return NIL, return NIL.")
> (args)
> Lisp_Object args;
> {
> register Lisp_Object val;
> Lisp_Object args_left;
> struct gcpro gcpro1;
>
> if (NULL(args))
> return Qnil;
>
> args_left = args;
> GCPRO1 (args_left);
>
> do
> {
> val = Feval (Fcar (args_left));
> if (!NULL (val))
> break;
> args_left = Fcdr (args_left);
> }
> while (!NULL(args_left));
>
> UNGCPRO;
> return val;
> }
>
> I saw that on comp.lang.c and found no one capable of explaining it.


If you see other context-free stuff on comp.lang.c, the situation will
not be different. The above code is rather trivial. But you'll find
the respective parts explained in the Emacs Lisp manual. In fact, the
above is likely extracted from exactly there, from

(info "(elisp) Writing Emacs Primitives")

I append the whole at the bottom to not interrupt the flow of
non-thought.

> And where does the manual explain the C struct or ADT of the basic
> cons cell ? which file has the definition ? where is his eval_quote
> function definition ?


eval_quote? What's that?

> Basically, Richard Mathew Stall man is a STALLER of PROGRESS. He
> expected the XEMACS people to EXPLAIN HIM EVERY SINGLE line of code.
> What did he do to expect all this ?


He was the maintainer of upstream Emacs, and it was his decision what
code was going there. And he had to keep maintainability in mind.
Something which was less of a priority with XEmacs developers, and
likely part of the reason that they are running out of fresh blood much
worse than Emacs these days.

> He was even paid money , as claimed by the XEMACS people.
>
> What did he do to deserve and EXPECT a line by line explanation from
> them ?????!!!!!! ANSWER this question and dont run away !!!!!!


There was nothing to "deserve". It was his job to keep Emacs going
forward, and his opinion and decision that throwing the Lucid Emacs code
in would not have been good in the long run. It has not been good for
XEmacs in the long run. Whether it would have been better or worse for
a grand unified Emacs, noone will ever know. He decided to play it safe
given the information he had at that time, and Emacs is still there and
going forward.

In spite of trolls like you spouting abuse by the hundreds.

More than can be said for many other projects.


File: elisp, Node: Writing Emacs Primitives, Next: Object Internals, Prev: Memory Usage, Up: GNU Emacs Internals

E.5 Writing Emacs Primitives
============================

Lisp primitives are Lisp functions implemented in C. The details of
interfacing the C function so that Lisp can call it are handled by a few
C macros. The only way to really understand how to write new C code is
to read the source, but we can explain some things here.

An example of a special form is the definition of `or', from
`eval.c'. (An ordinary function would have the same general
appearance.)

DEFUN ("or", For, Sor, 0, UNEVALLED, 0,
doc: /* Eval args until one of them yields non-nil, then return that
value. The remaining args are not evalled at all.
If all args return nil, return nil.
usage: (or CONDITIONS ...) */)
(Lisp_Object args)
{
register Lisp_Object val = Qnil;
struct gcpro gcpro1;

GCPRO1 (args);

while (CONSP (args))
{
val = Feval (XCAR (args));
if (!NILP (val))
break;
args = XCDR (args);
}

UNGCPRO;
return val;
}

Let's start with a precise explanation of the arguments to the
`DEFUN' macro. Here is a template for them:

DEFUN (LNAME, FNAME, SNAME, MIN, MAX, INTERACTIVE, DOC)

LNAME
This is the name of the Lisp symbol to define as the function
name; in the example above, it is `or'.

FNAME
This is the C function name for this function. This is the name
that is used in C code for calling the function. The name is, by
convention, `F' prepended to the Lisp name, with all dashes (`-')
in the Lisp name changed to underscores. Thus, to call this
function from C code, call `For'. Remember that the arguments must
be of type `Lisp_Object'; various macros and functions for creating
values of type `Lisp_Object' are declared in the file `lisp.h'.

SNAME
This is a C variable name to use for a structure that holds the
data for the subr object that represents the function in Lisp.
This structure conveys the Lisp symbol name to the initialization
routine that will create the symbol and store the subr object as
its definition. By convention, this name is always FNAME with `F'
replaced with `S'.

MIN
This is the minimum number of arguments that the function
requires. The function `or' allows a minimum of zero arguments.

MAX
This is the maximum number of arguments that the function accepts,
if there is a fixed maximum. Alternatively, it can be `UNEVALLED',
indicating a special form that receives unevaluated arguments, or
`MANY', indicating an unlimited number of evaluated arguments (the
equivalent of `&rest'). Both `UNEVALLED' and `MANY' are macros.
If MAX is a number, it may not be less than MIN and it may not be
greater than eight.

INTERACTIVE
This is an interactive specification, a string such as might be
used as the argument of `interactive' in a Lisp function. In the
case of `or', it is 0 (a null pointer), indicating that `or'
cannot be called interactively. A value of `""' indicates a
function that should receive no arguments when called
interactively. If the value begins with a `(', the string is
evaluated as a Lisp form.

DOC
This is the documentation string. It uses C comment syntax rather
than C string syntax because comment syntax requires nothing
special to include multiple lines. The `doc:' identifies the
comment that follows as the documentation string. The `/*' and
`*/' delimiters that begin and end the comment are not part of the
documentation string.

If the last line of the documentation string begins with the
keyword `usage:', the rest of the line is treated as the argument
list for documentation purposes. This way, you can use different
argument names in the documentation string from the ones used in
the C code. `usage:' is required if the function has an unlimited
number of arguments.

All the usual rules for documentation strings in Lisp code (*note
Documentation Tips: apply to C code documentation strings too.

After the call to the `DEFUN' macro, you must write the argument
list that every C function must have, including the types for the
arguments. For a function with a fixed maximum number of arguments,
declare a C argument for each Lisp argument, and give them all type
`Lisp_Object'. When a Lisp function has no upper limit on the number
of arguments, its implementation in C actually receives exactly two
arguments: the first is the number of Lisp arguments, and the second is
the address of a block containing their values. They have types `int'
and `Lisp_Object *'.

Within the function `For' itself, note the use of the macros
`GCPRO1' and `UNGCPRO'. `GCPRO1' is used to "protect" a variable from
garbage collection--to inform the garbage collector that it must look
in that variable and regard its contents as an accessible object. GC
protection is necessary whenever you call `Feval' or anything that can
directly or indirectly call `Feval'. At such a time, any Lisp object
that this function may refer to again must be protected somehow.

It suffices to ensure that at least one pointer to each object is
GC-protected; that way, the object cannot be recycled, so all pointers
to it remain valid. Thus, a particular local variable can do without
protection if it is certain that the object it points to will be
preserved by some other pointer (such as another local variable which
has a `GCPRO')(1). Otherwise, the local variable needs a `GCPRO'.

The macro `GCPRO1' protects just one local variable. If you want to
protect two variables, use `GCPRO2' instead; repeating `GCPRO1' will
not work. Macros `GCPRO3', `GCPRO4', `GCPRO5', and `GCPRO6' also
exist. All these macros implicitly use local variables such as
`gcpro1'; you must declare these explicitly, with type `struct gcpro'.
Thus, if you use `GCPRO2', you must declare `gcpro1' and `gcpro2'.
Alas, we can't explain all the tricky details here.

`UNGCPRO' cancels the protection of the variables that are protected
in the current function. It is necessary to do this explicitly.

Built-in functions that take a variable number of arguments actually
accept two arguments at the C level: the number of Lisp arguments, and
a `Lisp_Object *' pointer to a C vector containing those Lisp
arguments. This C vector may be part of a Lisp vector, but it need not
be. The responsibility for using `GCPRO' to protect the Lisp arguments
from GC if necessary rests with the caller in this case, since the
caller allocated or found the storage for them.

You must not use C initializers for static or global variables unless
the variables are never written once Emacs is dumped. These variables
with initializers are allocated in an area of memory that becomes
read-only (on certain operating systems) as a result of dumping Emacs.
*Note Pure Storage::.

Do not use static variables within functions--place all static
variables at top level in the file. This is necessary because Emacs on
some operating systems defines the keyword `static' as a null macro.
(This definition is used because those systems put all variables
declared static in a place that becomes read-only after dumping, whether
they have initializers or not.)

Defining the C function is not enough to make a Lisp primitive
available; you must also create the Lisp symbol for the primitive and
store a suitable subr object in its function cell. The code looks like
this:

defsubr (&SUBR-STRUCTURE-NAME);

Here SUBR-STRUCTURE-NAME is the name you used as the third argument to
`DEFUN'.

If you add a new primitive to a file that already has Lisp primitives
defined in it, find the function (near the end of the file) named
`syms_of_SOMETHING', and add the call to `defsubr' there. If the file
doesn't have this function, or if you create a new file, add to it a
`syms_of_FILENAME' (e.g., `syms_of_myfile'). Then find the spot in
`emacs.c' where all of these functions are called, and add a call to
`syms_of_FILENAME' there.

The function `syms_of_FILENAME' is also the place to define any C
variables that are to be visible as Lisp variables. `DEFVAR_LISP'
makes a C variable of type `Lisp_Object' visible in Lisp. `DEFVAR_INT'
makes a C variable of type `int' visible in Lisp with a value that is
always an integer. `DEFVAR_BOOL' makes a C variable of type `int'
visible in Lisp with a value that is either `t' or `nil'. Note that
variables defined with `DEFVAR_BOOL' are automatically added to the list
`byte-boolean-vars' used by the byte compiler.

If you define a file-scope C variable of type `Lisp_Object', you
must protect it from garbage-collection by calling `staticpro' in
`syms_of_FILENAME', like this:

staticpro (&VARIABLE);

Here is another example function, with more complicated arguments.
This comes from the code in `window.c', and it demonstrates the use of
macros and functions to manipulate Lisp objects.

DEFUN ("coordinates-in-window-p", Fcoordinates_in_window_p,
Scoordinates_in_window_p, 2, 2,
"xSpecify coordinate pair: \nXExpression which evals to window: ",
"Return non-nil if COORDINATES is in WINDOW.\n\
COORDINATES is a cons of the form (X . Y), X and Y being distances\n\
...
If they are on the border between WINDOW and its right sibling,\n\
`vertical-line' is returned.")
(coordinates, window)
register Lisp_Object coordinates, window;
{
int x, y;

CHECK_LIVE_WINDOW (window, 0);
CHECK_CONS (coordinates, 1);
x = XINT (Fcar (coordinates));
y = XINT (Fcdr (coordinates));

switch (coordinates_in_window (XWINDOW (window), &x, &y))
{
case 0: /* NOT in window at all. */
return Qnil;

case 1: /* In text part of window. */
return Fcons (make_number (x), make_number (y));

case 2: /* In mode line of window. */
return Qmode_line;

case 3: /* On right border of window. */
return Qvertical_line;

default:
abort ();
}
}

Note that C code cannot call functions by name unless they are
defined in C. The way to call a function written in Lisp is to use
`Ffuncall', which embodies the Lisp function `funcall'. Since the Lisp
function `funcall' accepts an unlimited number of arguments, in C it
takes two: the number of Lisp-level arguments, and a one-dimensional
array containing their values. The first Lisp-level argument is the
Lisp function to call, and the rest are the arguments to pass to it.
Since `Ffuncall' can call the evaluator, you must protect pointers from
garbage collection around the call to `Ffuncall'.

The C functions `call0', `call1', `call2', and so on, provide handy
ways to call a Lisp function conveniently with a fixed number of
arguments. They work by calling `Ffuncall'.

`eval.c' is a very good file to look through for examples; `lisp.h'
contains the definitions for some important macros and functions.

If you define a function which is side-effect free, update the code
in `byte-opt.el' which binds `side-effect-free-fns' and
`side-effect-and-error-free-fns' so that the compiler optimizer knows
about it.

---------- Footnotes ----------

(1) Formerly, strings were a special exception; in older Emacs
versions, every local variable that might point to a string needed a
`GCPRO'.

> He is prone to forgetting like all mortals and if he is prolific to
> write that 900 page manual, I am sure he has hidden notes that he has
> not released. Where was he recording the line by line explanation he
> was receiving from the XEMACS people ? If not in his own very personal
> version ???


What makes you think he received any such explanation? Why would not
the XEmacs people, after writing such explanations, put them in their
own code and manuals?

Your conspiracy theories just stink.

> Answer these very strong arguments ???


Ok, so they stink strongly.

> What did he deserve to get the XEMACS people's explanations ? AND why
> is he INCAPABLE of building upon the XEMACS work ??? This is all about
> documentation, professional jealousies of these mean spirited people
> with double standards. Send him a CC of this thread. I expect him to
> explain some of these issues of documentation.


I quoted the above part from the documentation. I do not consider this
sort of **** worth his attention and certainly won't forward it, lending
it credibility. It is not like he has a secret Email address or
something. I should hope he would have the prudence to just throw crap
like the above away should he receive it from some anonymous idiot not
willing to sign his name under his brain farts.

--
David Kastrup
 
Reply With Quote
 
Kenneth Tilton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2010
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message
> <(E-Mail Removed)>, Nick Keighley wrote:
>
>> On 16 July, 09:24, Mark Tarver <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On 15 July, 23:21, bolega <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallman-kth.html
>>>> RMS lecture at KTH (Sweden), 30 October 1986

>> did you really have to post all of this...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> read more »...

>> ...oh sorry only about a third of it...

>
> Still totally unnecessary, though.
>
>>> Perhaps as an antidote
>>>
>>> http://danweinreb.org/blog/rebuttal-...bolics-and-lmi

>
> In other words, software that was developed at Symbolics was not given
> way for free to LMI. Is that so surprising?
>
> Which is conceding Stallman’s point.
>
> Anyway, that wasn’t Symbolics’s “plan”; it was part of the MIT licensing
> agreement, the very same one that LMI signed. LMI’s changes were all
> proprietary to LMI, too.
>
> I don’t understand this bit. The only “MIT licensing agreement” I’m aware
> off _allows_ you to redistribute your copies without the source, but doesn’t
> _require_ it.
>
>


Right, and this "fascinating" and "amazing" and "awesome" post needs
only one rejoinder: twenty-four years later all we have is "free as in
beer" software being milked by proprietary enterprises.

Sadly, they would be more effective and more profitable if RMS had never
existed, because then they would be paying fair market price for
significantly better proprietary tools driven by the demands of a
price/value competitive market.

What we do not have is any interesting amount of "free as in speech"
software, because no one uses the GPL.

The LGPL is Stallman's way of saying, OK, I was wrong.

kt

--
http://www.stuckonalgebra.com
"The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself."
Macworld
 
Reply With Quote
 
Nick Keighley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-19-2010
On 18 July, 09:38, Emmy Noether <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Jul 18, 1:09*am, Nick <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > Emmy Noether <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:


<snip>

> > > In this video, Stall man makes 4 promises to public but stalls on 2nd
> > > of them.

>
> > I have no idea of the rights or wrongs of this case. *But I've found
> > through experience that when someone uses a "witty" misspelling of
> > someone's name, they are almost always the one in the wrong. *

>
> Huh, you forgot that the whole of GNU = Gnu Not Unix


you know someone named GNU? They must have had strange parents...
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fascinating interview by Richard Stallman on Russia TV bolega C Programming 20 08-05-2010 02:26 PM
Fascinating interview by Richard Stallman on Russia TV bolega C Programming 1 07-16-2010 03:11 AM
Fascinating interview by Richard Stallman on Russia TV bolega Python 1 07-16-2010 03:11 AM
Richard Stallman on Kim Hill Sat 9th Aug Adam NZ Computing 8 08-09-2008 12:12 PM
The Fascinating Nessuno George Orwell Computer Support 1 03-23-2008 02:34 PM



Advertisments