David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I really think that this is one change that we are better off without.
I agree.
--
Kim F. Storm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.cua.dk
___
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/
Juanma Barranquero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 7/26/05, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I really think that this is one change that we are better off without.
>
> I didn't propose it, so I'm hardly going to enter a fight for it. I
> just happen to think is not only not as outrag
On 7/26/05, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Though it does not sound like
> you in particular would mind much either which way.
That's it. To me, the exasperation rate of the issue is almost zero. :)
--
/L/e/k/t/u
___
On 7/26/05, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, just _when_ would you use it?
Me? I wouldn't use it. I don't develop packages with XEmacs as the
primary target. I don't ever intend to.
> You just said above that making the distinction only makes sense for
> packages maintained externa
Juanma Barranquero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, supporting "(boundp 'emacs)" would make sense.
So, just _when_ would you use it?
> I don't think we're in the business of telling outside elisp
> developers whether they should consider Emacs or XEmacs the "main
> line".
You just said ab
On 7/25/05, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure. As long as we have code intended to run with XEmacs, calling it
> anything but code intended to run with XEmacs would be obfuscate.
>
> The only way around that would be to completely remove all such code.
> This does not make sense ex
"Richard M. Stallman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sure. As long as we have code intended to run with XEmacs, calling it
> anything but code intended to run with XEmacs would be obfuscate.
>
> The option we're actually talking about is not obfuscated.
>
> (if (featurep 'emacs)
>
Sure. As long as we have code intended to run with XEmacs, calling it
anything but code intended to run with XEmacs would be obfuscate.
The option we're actually talking about is not obfuscated.
(if (featurep 'emacs)
...
...)
___
"Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
>
>XEmacs, after all, does meet the criteria of free software.
>
> Actually and unfortunately, we do not know whether it does.
>
> Certainly, the main authors intend that. But they have not
> collecte
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
XEmacs, after all, does meet the criteria of free software.
Actually and unfortunately, we do not know whether it does.
Certainly, the main authors intend that. But they have not collected
the legal paperwork necessary to prove it to a hostile court.
"Richard M. Stallman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Naturally. (featurep 'xemacs) means "here is an exception for the
> sake of XEmacs".
>
> We don't have to make exceptions for the sake of Emacs. We are the
> main line.
>
> That's a valid point. At the same time, it means that
Naturally. (featurep 'xemacs) means "here is an exception for the
sake of XEmacs".
We don't have to make exceptions for the sake of Emacs. We are the
main line.
That's a valid point. At the same time, it means that our code is
full of mentions of XEmacs.
_
"Richard M. Stallman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why bother. People already use (featurep 'xemacs) in order to
> check whether they're running on Emacs or XEmacs. So (featurep
> 'emacs) would be redundant.
>
> But that way the code always says (featurep 'xemacs).
Naturally. (fea
Why bother. People already use (featurep 'xemacs) in order to check whether
they're running on Emacs or XEmacs. So (featurep 'emacs) would be
redundant.
But that way the code always says (featurep 'xemacs).
___
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emac
> Well, it didn't always do the job.
> This code is needed.
Could you give at least some example so we can add relevant comments
explaining the apparent redundancy?
I don't remember what it was, but the bug report was within the past
three weeks.
> the last part not only is strange because (featurep 'emacs) is never used
> (since Emacs does not provide the `emacs' feature)
> I didn't realize that at the time, but maybe we should add it.
Why bother. People already use (featurep 'xemacs) in order to check whether
they're running on
the last part not only is strange because (featurep 'emacs) is never used
(since Emacs does not provide the `emacs' feature)
I didn't realize that at the time, but maybe we should add it.
but also because it tries
to handle (featu
> I think the handling in byteopt.el is about generating bytecode (or
> not doing it, for XEmacs-specific code) while the one in bytecomp.el
> is about not issuing warnings for XEmacs features. For example, it
> silences a warning in flymake.el about the use of
> `multiple-value-bind'.
The one in
On 7/21/05, Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the last part not only is strange because (featurep 'emacs) is never used
> (since Emacs does not provide the `emacs' feature)
Yeah, I pointed this out in a message a few days ago. Perhaps it'd be
useful to define the feature 'emacs, but eve
19 matches
Mail list logo
