----- Original Message ----- From: "Eli Zaretskii" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > There is something I do not understand in your argument. How about > > HAVE_MOUSE, HAVE_SOUND? > > These are configure-time definitions, unlike HAVE_HOURGLASS. They > test the basic capabilities of the underlying platform, while > HAVE_HOURGLASS tells something about Emacs support of the feature, not > about its availability on the platform. I see. Then it would maybe be better to call it HOURGLASS_SUPPORTED. > Jason responded with a clear and eloquent explanation, and I can only > say I agree with him 100%. You both did and that made me wonder how we could come to so different conclusions. It seems to me like you say (as above) that the constants are telling something about the platform in itself. That is one use of them, a technical use. Another use of constants could be telling if a feature is support. Then the constant is of course still platform dependend (but on next abstraction level so to say). That is what I propose. However Stefan just suggested to use stubs instead to make the code more readable. That is what I also suggested, but I thought most people here would like the HOURGLASS_SUPPORTED better at the moment since it is perhaps quicker to implement right now. But that assumption might just be a mistake by me? _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
