help-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: help-gnu-emacs Digest, Vol 198, Issue 16


From: Budi
Subject: Re: help-gnu-emacs Digest, Vol 198, Issue 16
Date: Mon, 6 May 2019 10:26:09 +0700

The rectangle selected region question replace with " symbol’s
function definition is void : t " error problem

copy into clipboard function is meant to save to kill-ring with or
without a selected region, if it exist then save that region otherwise
make up a full line region and save that
but got " symbol’s function definition is void : t " error above


(defun copy (b e)
  (interactive "r")
  (if (use-region-p) (call-interactively 'kill-ring-save)
  (beginning-of-line)
  (push-mark (line-end-position))
  (activate-mark)
  (call-interactively 'kill-ring-save)
  (deactivate-mark)
  (pop-mark)))
(global-set-key (kbd "C-c") 'copy)


How to debug and solve this ?
Invaluale thanks to anyone sincerely help  me out

On 5/5/19, address@hidden
<address@hidden> wrote:
> Send help-gnu-emacs mailing list submissions to
>       address@hidden
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>       https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnu-emacs
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>       address@hidden
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>       address@hidden
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of help-gnu-emacs digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Why is Elisp slow? (Stefan Monnier)
>    2. Re: Why is Elisp slow? (?scar Fuentes)
>    3. Re: How do we copy rectangular selected region (?scar Fuentes)
>    4. Re: Why is Elisp slow? (Ergus)
>    5. Re: Why is Elisp slow? (Stefan Monnier)
>    6. Re: Why is Elisp slow? (Stefan Monnier)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 05 May 2019 08:51:40 -0400
> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> To: Ergus <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: Why is Elisp slow?
> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
>> the last months). New programmers generations only know python and some
>> C-like languages but specially OOP and maybe is the moment to think a bit
>> in
>> the future of the project more than in the past. Even if that implies
>> taking
>
> This describes the situation from today just as well as that from 10
> years ago, 20 years, and even 30 years ago.
>
> Rewriting all Emacs packages in the language-du-jour every 10 years
> doesn't sound very realistic.
>
>
>         Stefan
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 05 May 2019 15:19:03 +0200
> From: ?scar Fuentes <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: Why is Elisp slow?
> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> "Paul W. Rankin" <address@hidden> writes:
>
>>> For the developers it is also easier to join to those projects
>>> because they are hosted on Github/gitlab with a more familiar
>>> workflow and interface, no copyright procedure, no mailing list....
>>> and everything in the same please and integrate with a fork based
>>> workflow. You can see where I'm going right?
>>
>> If a possible contributor has cloned a project repository to their own
>> machine and has made some changes, the fork-based workflow requires
>> that they: create an account at the origin project's GitHub or GitLab
>> (or the project's GitLab instance),
>
> This is an one-off task.
>
>> create a forked repository there,
>
> Same.
>
>> add the fork as a remote on their machine,
>
> Same.
>
>> push the changes, then open a pull request.
>
> Which, in my experience, takes half a minute with the Github UI and
> possibly less with Magit's Github plugin.
>
>> Once you use a git send-email workflow, this fork-based workflow will
>> seem convoluted and unnecessarily centralised. All a contributor need
>> do is clone the project repository, commit some changes then run:
>>
>>    git send-email HEAD^
>
> You skipped over quite a few issues here. Plus, a branch is easy to
> access, in case someone wishes to grab the changes, while fishing mails
> on a mailing list requires more setup and constant attention.
>
>> And send the email to the project's owner/mailing list. No account
>> creation necessary. Check out:
>>
>>    https://git-send-email.io/
>
> Yes, that explains the job on a detailed way, and you can see that it is
> not as simple as you pretend. Plus, that's the setup for sending
> changes, no mention about how to grab them from the ml.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 05 May 2019 15:22:08 +0200
> From: ?scar Fuentes <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: How do we copy rectangular selected region
> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> Budi <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> How can we copy  rectangular selected region on latest emacs
>> we paste it as line region instead
>> how do such by script elisp.. thanks in advance
>
> Does `copy-rectangle-as-kill' what you want? If not, please give more
> details.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 5 May 2019 15:46:01 +0200
> From: Ergus <address@hidden>
> To: "Paul W. Rankin" <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: Why is Elisp slow?
> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> Hi Paul:
>
> On Sun, May 05, 2019 at 03:25:59PM +1000, Paul W. Rankin wrote:
>>
>>
>>I don't understand this sentiment. Is there some emergency in Emacs
>>development that I'm unaware of? Development seems faster and stronger
>>than it ever has in the decade or so I've been using Emacs -- there's
>>a new major release every year or so, and with the addition of
>>package.el there's the introduction of third-party package archives
>>and the explosion that is MELPA.
>>
> I agree with you in that development is still active. But the grown in
> number of users and developers is pretty constant, while the number of
> developers and computer users in the world has grow exponentially. But
> also there are sections and full parts in the emacs code without expert
> to maintain it right now.
>
> Mane old developers has left and deep/infrastructure/architectural big
> changes are every time more difficult to do and the tendency goes worst
> with time (more and more code).
>
> Just give a look to the rating of the other editors I
> mentioned, and their git repository. In fact in the last year, the
> articles recommending text editors for programmers rarely include Emacs
> while vim is in all of them. Also in my work there are more
> than 400 programmers and I am the only Emacs user. Same when I go to
> conferences around. So this is a bad statistical signal. Without users
> there are not potential contributor.
>
> We don't have a technical problem because emacs is more powerful than
> most of the editors in the lists around, but we have a social problem.
>
> Package.el same as modules are the best and more important steps emacs
> has made in the last years. It has motivated and organized many things
> that were very problematic before, which is very important, but it is
> something the GNU/Linux distros figured out like 25 years ago
> (aptitude, yast, pacman, synaptic), so we were (and are) late (not
> wrong, just late, delayed in time for the decisions).
>
> Just looking at the number of code reviewers we have, it is a reason to
> worry. We have much less developers/contributors in emacs than what vim
> has these days, and at the same time we have more than 2 times more code
> to maintain with more languages and functionalities.
>
>>
>>The possibility of the current Emacs developers all dying out is not
>>something anyone needs to worry about for at least another 30-40
>>years, and I'm pretty sure we (the human race) will have vastly
>>different concerns by then.
>
> Not only dying, but also leaving, getting busy with the years, or
> keeping old standards and paradigms, workflows, tools, concerns... and
> this is reflected automatically in the project. Emacs needs new blood,
> new people with new needs, ideas and concerns.
>
>>But even if we reach a point where there
>>is no one left maintaining/developing/using Emacs, it's open source
>>code... someone will discover it and if they find it useful or
>>interesting, they will continue developing it. Open source code can
>>never really die.
>>
>
> The idea (and our reponsability) is not to reach there if we can avoid
> that. Otherwise we failed as maintainers/developers.
>
>>
>>Where does this fear come from that an open source project will die if
>>it doesn't keep changing?
>>
>
> Is not keep changing, is keep usefulness for its main purpose. What
> emacs does as main purpose "edit text" will always gonna be useful. But,
> are we being "competitive" in this field? The emacs infrastructure and
> philosophy has all the needed for that (and much much muuuuuch more),
> but are we using it properly for that purpose?
>
> I think it is the best infrastructure to edit text, but right now we
> are not providing the best editor (which should be the main goal). And
> we add more and more and more functionalities and code. It is common
> to heard that "emacs is a good OS, it only lacks a good editor."
> which makes me very angry, but from the current editors standards
> point of view it is right.
>
> We don't need to keed changing, we need to do the right changes for
> the project long path. FOr example: provide interaction with other
> systems, languajes, optimize the compiler or rely in some other one
> that already do it well and we trust in, cleanup code and portions of
> code not fundamental for the emacs functionality or move them to
> elpa/melpa. Standarize a bit more the bindings and function names.
>
> For example the performance issues many people complain about
> frequently is just a consequence of the extreme generalization in
> functionalities and overheads in the infrastructure added for doing
> "everything", but many of those things we barely do well in 2019
> standards (some of then were added, and abandoned), so most users use
> something different for that (like web browsing, reading PDF, play
> tetris, play music, create buffers with buttons, have duality for TUI
> and GUI in the same program, support very old architectures that are
> inexistent these days) And all this is more and more and more code to
> maintain, and more fields of expertise needed in our domain.
>
> Same happens with development, we have files with more than 33000 lines
> that we need to maintain, and any change in it is veeeeery complicated
> and complex, but most of the code is to give support to some
> functionalities very rarely used in practice.
>
> And the infrastructure itself is poorly documented and complex
> (specially the C interaction with Lisp from within emacs files.)
> Thanks Eli, Stefan and the others who takes care of new users like me,
> but that method to introduce developers is not scalable and makes them
> to spend a lot of time.
>
>>
>>
>>If a possible contributor has cloned a project repository to their own
>>machine and has made some changes, the fork-based workflow requires
>>that they: create an account at the origin project's GitHub or GitLab
>>(or the project's GitLab instance), create a forked repository there,
>>add the fork as a remote on their machine, push the changes, then open
>>a pull request.
>>
>>Once you use a git send-email workflow, this fork-based workflow will
>>seem convoluted and unnecessarily centralised. All a contributor need
>>do is clone the project repository, commit some changes then run:
>>
>>   git send-email HEAD^
>>
>>And send the email to the project's owner/mailing list. No account
>>creation necessary. Check out:
>>
>>   https://git-send-email.io/
>>
>>Yes the copyright assignment procedure is a deterrent to contributing
>>to Emacs/ELPA; this discussion is probably for another thread.
>>
>>--
>>https://www.paulwrankin.com
>>
>
> This is not better than having a fork-merge request workflow. But also
> forces to handmake a lot of the steps the new interfaces do for you like
> reading the patch and make comments, follow those comments and reply to
> specific parts of them, make then visible in the web, automatic
> test/benchmark the functionalities, changes, close the requests or deny
> them, give access for all that to the users in the future. Group people
> in different forks working in the same functionality, bug, issue,
> extension; test the code in the fork head automatically before merging
> it in master. Is not impossible to do all this, it is just more manual,
> time consumming and unfamiliar for 90% of the developers I know.
>
> But also it is somehow dangerous, because actually everybody writes in
> the master branch, while in my opinion only the managers (Eli, Stefan,
> Alan...) should write there and the rest (me) should write only in the
> forks and make pull requests (similar to what we do with branches, but
> safer).
>
> Now for the project it looks like:
>
> bug: bugtracker
> developement: savannah
> developer interaction: mailing list
> user interaction: reddit + help mailing list
> documentation: within emacs
> project main page: gnu.org
> contribution: copyright process+mailing list+savannah
> questions: another mailing list
> packages: elpa
> more packages: melpa
> user hacks and advices: emacswiki
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 05 May 2019 11:40:57 -0400
> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: Why is Elisp slow?
> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
>> But very well then, why can't Elisp be compiled
>> as fast as CL (or C), and then be used on top
>> of (C) Emacs?
>
> Same meaningless question.
>
>> Or if it can, why isn't it?
>
> That's the valid question.
> AFAIK, the answer is that nobody was motivated enough to do it.
>
>
>         Stefan
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 05 May 2019 11:50:16 -0400
> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: Why is Elisp slow?
> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>> The more I think about Guile Emacs and the Guile project itself, I start
>> to
>> think that it?s not a problem of manpower, but something more
>> fundamental.
>
> Quite right.
>
>> Is it feasible (or even possible) to make two different high
>> level languages to interoperate in the engine level???
>
> Language interoperation is very difficult, and even more so if you want
> both languages to be usable "equally" (as opposed to a high-level
> language with FFI bindings, say).  The .NET platform aims to do just
> that, and note that it's fairly complex and the most successful
> languages there were specifically designed/tweaked for that platform.
>
>> For example, will it even make sense to have some Elisp macros in scheme
>
> Interoperation between "similar" languages like Elisp and Scheme can
> probably be made to be tolerable (e.g. I guess most Emacs-specific
> special forms of Elisp, such as `save-excursion`, could be provided on
> the Scheme side without too much trouble (famous last words)), but
> macros seem pretty hard to handle in general (i.e. will require manual
> work on a macro-by-macro case).
>
>> land, or even lua land, python land, JS land???
>
> For these, macros aren't the only problem, since there's also the
> problem of the different kinds of datatypes used.  What would JS objects
> look like in Elisp, and what would Elisp objects look like in JS?
>
>> I would like a JSish API for emacs when writing packages, not a low
>> level wrapper around Elisp APIs.
>
> Indeed.
>
>> What would I do to use a Python module in JS??? Unless the language itself
>> is
>> designed to be easily interoperable with elisp by superseding concepts
>> (such
>> as Clojure superseding Java), I?m pretty sure many people won?t be
>> satisfied
>> in any kind of implementation.
>
> Exactly.
>
>
>         Stefan
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> help-gnu-emacs mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnu-emacs
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of help-gnu-emacs Digest, Vol 198, Issue 16
> ***********************************************
>



reply via email to

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