"Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup writes: > > > complain to you instead of to us, you accuse me of "inciting to > > riot" and declare that you can ignore reports regardless of their > > number. > > s/reports/duplicate nagging/
Which you declare even before receiving such a report. And you ignore "single nagging" because it supposedly indicates only outliers. > > I asked Artemio to report his problem, possibly including a > > screen shot for illustration. You consider bug reports abuse, > > before you even see them? > > Of course not. I do consider the way you submit reports to be > abusive, though. For heaven's sake, David, you yourself feel > compelled to wrap them in a <rant> element half the time! If I do this "half the time", it should not be difficult for you to back up this claim with a _single_ such example. I am afraid that your memory plays games with you (not that this is the first time I suspect that). Such cutesies (as well as smilies) are not part of my personal style. I prefer to let the words speak for themselves. > As for sight unseen, if Ralf is correct, I've seen it, and if it's > the one I'm thinking of, I was unwilling to make a call then, > apparently nobody else was either, and I don't have time to do a > better job now. > > Unless, of course, somebody is willing to match the effort it will > cost me. Then we can check each other, which is more effective than > trying to check myself, not to mention more fun. You've seen Robert's patch and my comments on it, I presume, as well as the corresponding code from Emacs I posted. Finding out _who_ put that strange copy-syntax-table there for _what_ reason should be easy for an XEmacs developer with CVS access. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ auctex-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
