The manual pre-dates these and it refers to various files within the
core XEmacs C code (not dynamically loaded) as "modules." This is
confusing, and so I need an alternative term for the these sections
of the core code.
I am revising the manual for XEmacs, a text editor mostly written in Lisp but with important code in C. It has a facility for loading functionality at run-time from files (dynamically linked libraries) originally written in C, and
making that functionality available to Lisp and to C. These are termed rCLmodules.rCY
In article <87jyw71d3z.fsf@parhasard.net>,
Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> wrote:
The manual pre-dates these and it refers to various files within the
core XEmacs C code (not dynamically loaded) as "modules." This is >confusing, and so I need an alternative term for the these sections
of the core code.
Can they not simply be referred to as files?
"Components" would be a possibility.
Den 20.02.2026 kl. 19.30 skrev Aidan Kehoe:
I am revising the manual for XEmacs, a text editor mostly written in Lisp but with important code in C. It has a facility for loading functionality at run-time from files (dynamically linked libraries) originally written in C, and making that functionality available to Lisp and to C. These are termed rCLmodules.rCY
Couldn't you call them lib_moduels and let the others just be modules?
Ar an fichi|| l|i de m|! Feabhra, scr|!obh Richard Tobin:
In article <87jyw71d3z.fsf@parhasard.net>,
Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> wrote:
The manual pre-dates these and it refers to various files within the >core XEmacs C code (not dynamically loaded) as "modules." This is >confusing, and so I need an alternative term for the these sections
of the core code.
Can they not simply be referred to as files?
Unfortunately a module in this sense is routinely multiple files.
"Components" would be a possibility.
Thanks, I may end up going with that.
Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> wrote:
Ar an fichi|a-| l|a-i de m|a-! Feabhra, scr|a-!obh Richard Tobin:
In article <87jyw71d3z.fsf@parhasard.net>,
Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> wrote:
The manual pre-dates these and it refers to various files within the >core XEmacs C code (not dynamically loaded) as "modules." This is >confusing, and so I need an alternative term for the these sections of >the core code.
Can they not simply be referred to as files?
Unfortunately a module in this sense is routinely multiple files.
"Components" would be a possibility.
Thanks, I may end up going with that.
'Blocks'? 'Subroutines'?
If you don't need a generic name to cover them as a group, you could
just give each one a name like "codereader" or "tablemaker".
Ar an ch|-ad l|i is fiche de m|! Feabhra, scr|!obh Liz Tuddenham:
Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> wrote:
Ar an fichi|a-| l|a-i de m|a-! Feabhra, scr|a-!obh Richard Tobin:
In article <87jyw71d3z.fsf@parhasard.net>,
Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> wrote:
The manual pre-dates these and it refers to various files within >the core XEmacs C code (not dynamically loaded) as "modules."
This is confusing, and so I need an alternative term for the
these sections of the core code.
Can they not simply be referred to as files?
Unfortunately a module in this sense is routinely multiple files.
"Components" would be a possibility.
Thanks, I may end up going with that.
'Blocks'? 'Subroutines'?
The former has a specific meaning within C distinct from this. rCLSubroutinerCY is very close to being a synonym for rCLfunctionrCY and, awkwardly, has an extra meaning within XEmacs (and emacs implementations
in general) of a function implemented in C.
If you don't need a generic name to cover them as a group, you could
just give each one a name like "codereader" or "tablemaker".
Unfortunately the term is repeatedly referenced throughout the 33,000 line manual, as a generic term to cover them as a group.
Another alternative would be rCLinternal module.rCY
Bertel Lund Hansen:
Den 20.02.2026 kl. 19.30 skrev Aidan Kehoe:I could, but rCLlibraryrCY is often a term for a file of Lisp code loaded at runtime, distinct from this.
I am revising the manual for XEmacs, a text editor mostly written in LispCouldn't you call them lib_moduels and let the others just be modules?
but with important code in C. It has a facility for loading functionality
at run-time from files (dynamically linked libraries) originally written in C, and making that functionality available to Lisp and to C. These are
termed rCLmodules.rCY
Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> wrote:
Ar an fichi|a-| l|a-i de m|a-! Feabhra, scr|a-!obh Richard Tobin:
In article <87jyw71d3z.fsf@parhasard.net>, Aidan Kehoe
<kehoea@parhasard.net> wrote:
The manual pre-dates these and it refers to various files within
the core XEmacs C code (not dynamically loaded) as "modules." This
is confusing, and so I need an alternative term for the these
sections of the core code.
Can they not simply be referred to as files?
Unfortunately a module in this sense is routinely multiple files.
"Components" would be a possibility.
Thanks, I may end up going with that.
'Blocks'? 'Subroutines'?
I am revising the manual for XEmacs, a text editor mostly written in Lisp but with important code in C. It has a facility for loading functionality at run-time from files (dynamically linked libraries) originally written in C, and
making that functionality available to Lisp and to C. These are termed rCLmodules.rCY
The manual pre-dates these and it refers to various files within the core XEmacs C code (not dynamically loaded) as rCLmodules.rCY This is confusing, and so
I need an alternative term for the these sections of the core code. rCLSubsystemrCY
is the best I have come up with so far but itrCOs not ideal (theyrCOre not really
rCLsystems.rCY). Nothing particularly helpful when I check various thesauri. Suggestions?
Le 20/02/2026 |a 18:30, Aidan Kehoe a |-crit :
I am revising the manual for XEmacs, a text editor mostly written in Lisp but with important code in C. It has a facility for loading functionality at run-time from files (dynamically linked libraries) originally written in C, and making that functionality available to Lisp and to C. These are termed rCLmodules.rCY
The manual pre-dates these and it refers to various files within the core XEmacs C code (not dynamically loaded) as rCLmodules.rCY This is confusing,
and so I need an alternative term for the these sections of the core code.
rCLSubsystemrCY is the best I have come up with so far but itrCOs not ideal
(theyrCOre not really rCLsystems.rCY). Nothing particularly helpful when I check
various thesauri. Suggestions?
Qualify them: 'core modules'... - or create an abbreviation: 'XCMs', 'XEmacs core modules'... (whatever).
Yes, I ended up calling them rCLinternal modules.rCY Thanks for the discussion and suggestions, everyone, appreciated even if I ended up
going with my own suggestion.
* Aidan Kehoe <871picya5g.fsf@parhasard.net> :
Wrote on Sun, 22 Feb 2026 17:12:59 +0000:
Yes, I ended up calling them rCLinternal modules.rCY Thanks for the discussion and suggestions, everyone, appreciated even if I ended up
going with my own suggestion.
If, as in GNU emacs, you're going to provide an interface to users to
write and load their own shared library objects (thereby extending
emacs), then "internal" may not be the best word
I am revising the manual for XEmacs, a text editor mostly written in
Lisp but with important code in C. It has a facility for loading functionality at run-time from files (dynamically linked libraries) originally written in C, and making that functionality available to
Lisp and to C. These are termed rCLmodules.rCY
On 21/02/26 05:30, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
I am revising the manual for XEmacs, a text editor mostly written in
Lisp but with important code in C. It has a facility for loading functionality at run-time from files (dynamically linked libraries) originally written in C, and making that functionality available to
Lisp and to C. These are termed rCLmodules.rCY
In the programming languages I know about, a module is a separately
compiled piece of code, usually in the form of a single file. A DLL is
built from several modules. And a DLL doesn't need an extra name,
because everyone calls it a DLL
A group of modules and/or DLLs that somehow belong together can be called a subsystem.
Ar an t-ocht|| l|i is fiche de m|! Feabhra, scr|!obh Peter Moylan:
On 21/02/26 05:30, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
I am revising the manual for XEmacs, a text editor mostly written
in Lisp but with important code in C. It has a facility for
loading functionality at run-time from files (dynamically linked
libraries) originally written in C, and making that functionality
available to Lisp and to C. These are termed rCLmodules.rCY
In the programming languages I know about, a module is a
separately compiled piece of code, usually in the form of a single
file. A DLL is built from several modules. And a DLL doesn't need
an extra name, because everyone calls it a DLL
The Lisp habit is to avoid acronyms (beyond rCLcarrCY, rCLcdrrCY). I didnrCOt choose rCLmodulerCY for this, but dynamically-loaded-library certainly
would be unwieldy.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (1 / 5) |
| Uptime: | 16:36:14 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (21,017K bytes) |
| Messages: | 193,384 |