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 Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel