Chris Beggy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Alex Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lots of packages define missing functions in order to run on Emacs and
XEmacs. Other packages test wethere critical functions are bound or
not, and then assume they are on Emacs or XEmacs. :(
I've had a
Chris Beggy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Alex Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lots of packages define missing functions in order to run on Emacs and
XEmacs. Other packages test wethere critical functions are bound or
not, and then assume they are on Emacs or XEmacs. :(
I've had a
On January 12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
featurep of XEmacs 21.1 and newer has fairly sophisticated emacs
version testing support. Has this been implemented for GNU Emacs
yet?
See, this is still a problem, because if you're on XEmacs 21.1 the
feature already exists and there's no testing to
On January 12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I am not sure, but it seems to me that autoloads are more desireable,
'cause then we defer the possible need/availability check to runtime.
Yep, except the compiler warnings I was attempting to hush up are for
variables, not functions/macros, and
On January 12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
What's the best solution for library writers then? Do you know
of any code examples where this is handled well?
I think the right way to go about this, and certainly the way I intend
pushing the BBDB source, is to firstly centralise all the versioning
On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:49:37 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jari Aalto+mail.emacs)
said:
I do not use VM, so loading bbdb-hooks.el fails. Here is a
slightly more intelligent code.
Thanks. I wondered what had gone wrong here. Could someone modify this
to detect whether rmail is installed
