On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Ronan Waide wrote:
> On February 17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>> I think that it should be possible to load and reload all lisp files
>> to you heart's content. Therefore I suggest you remove it and see
>> wether it breaks. My guess is, nothing breaks.
>
> The check is inser
On February 17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> I think that it should be possible to load and reload all lisp files
> to you heart's content. Therefore I suggest you remove it and see
> wether it breaks. My guess is, nothing breaks.
The check is inserted by update-autoloads or whatever the damn comm
On February 17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > "Alex" == Alex Schroeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Then why doesn't someone write two really good layers -- one to
> XEmacsify FSF code, and one to FSFify XEmacs code -- and save us all
> the trouble?
Have a look at sysdep.el (?) as included
> "Alex" == Alex Schroeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ronan> Yah; it's the gratuituous differences that annoy me. Like
Ronan> overlays vs. extents, for example, and the completely
Ronan> incompatible menuing systems.
Alex> Yaaahrg! I've written layers to handle both two or three times
Alex
Ronan Waide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yah; it's the gratuituous differences that annoy me. Like overlays
> vs. extents, for example, and the completely incompatible menuing
> systems.
Yaaahrg! I've written layers to handle both two or three times and
I'm getting s tired!
But back to th
> "Ronan" == Ronan Waide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ronan> Xemacs at this point barfs; if I do a -debug-init, the
Ronan> stack trace reveals that it's barfing on the *first line*
Ronan> of my .bbdb, which is calling bbdb-initialize. I don't have
Ronan> a require or anything e
