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 externally.
And so, what? Obviously, if we added the feature 'emacs it *would not*
be for us to use, just to help outside developers. That's the exact
same reason why some functions we've added are XEmacs-compatible (I
just happen to hate the names `define-obsolete-function-alias' and
`define-obsolete-variable-alias', which I would make shorter in a
blink, but they were added as such because XEmacs already define them,
IIRC).
> I don't see that. I am afraid of people putting (boundp 'emacs) into
> code also for things that Emacs happens to have _now_, even though
> XEmacs might gain them in a later synch, or just putting (boundp
> 'emacs) habitually in without thinking anything about it.
That's no different of using "(fboundp 'feature-such-and-such)" for
features Emacs already have. And, worrying about people using things
without thinking smells a bit of patronizing, to me. (No insult
intended, I can assure you.)
> 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 outrageous as you made it
sound (when you said "This is so backwards that I consider it
repulsive."), but I even think that could be useful.
--
/L/e/k/t/u
_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
