Andreas> paragraph-fill-warts bug should be cured now for XEmacs too in
Andreas> python-mode-components branch.
Andreas> Will set branch `paragraph-fill-warts' on `obsolet'.
So I need to abandon my current checkout and replace it with this other
branch? Is there some way to (easily)
Barry> I agree that I see no reason why python-mode.el can't borrow
Barry> liberally from it. :)
>>
>> OTOH, if it works with XEmacs, why not just declare victory and go
>> home?
Barry> Have you tried it? I'd be pretty surprised if it worked better,
Barry> since the E
On Feb 16, 2011, at 11:06 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>Andreas> paragraph-fill-warts bug should be cured now for XEmacs too in
>Andreas> python-mode-components branch.
>
>Andreas> Will set branch `paragraph-fill-warts' on `obsolet'.
>
>So I need to abandon my current checkout and replace
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:11 AM, wrote:
> Barry> I agree that I see no reason why python-mode.el can't borrow
> Barry> liberally from it. :)
> >>
> >> OTOH, if it works with XEmacs, why not just declare victory and go
> >> home?
>
> Barry> Have you tried it? I'd be pretty surp
mh> WRT switching from XEmacs, what is your reason for using it?
mh> Curious minds want to know. :)
History. Moving is hard.
Skip
___
Python-mode mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-mode
On Feb 16, 2011, at 11:11 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>I haven't tried it though I suspect you're right. However, how in the hell
>else are we ever going to reduce the number of different Python modes? So,
>today the new python.el maintainer seems happy. Assume GNU Emacs sucks it
>up. Two years
On Feb 16, 2011, at 10:34 AM, m h wrote:
>* patch the new code to pull in any missing python-mode.el functionality
>
>The latter could be seen as a merge that would give a one true mode
>with superset functionality. It would also get python-mode
>effectively into the emacs distribution (ending th
On 2/16/2011 12:34 PM, m h wrote:
WRT switching from XEmacs, what is your reason for using it? Curious
minds want to know. :)
My reason is simple. I consider Stallman delusional.
1) he considers the needs of free software to be dominant over the needs of
disabled users.
2) he appears to belie
