emacs-devel archive search

Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ automated: 1073 ] [ test (Too many documents hit. Ignored) ]

Total 1073 documents matching your query.

1. Re: timing Emacs 21 (was: comments on ntemacs 21.0.91) (score: -7)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 11:17:16 -0500 (EST)
Sometimes Emacs 20.7 is faster than the current Emacs 21 and sometimes it is slower. forward-char Emacs 21 faster forward-line Emacs 21 faster forward-word Emacs 20 faster forward-sentence Emacs 20 c
/archive/html/emacs-devel/2000-12/msg00009.html (14,998 bytes)

2. Re: timing Emacs 21 (was: comments on ntemacs 21.0.91) (score: -7)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 10:18:55 -0500 (EST)
Here are timing results from code that evokes (sit-for 0). Currently, Emacs 20 is much faster than Emacs 21. The machine used is a Pentium I, 100 MHz, 58 Mb RAM GNU Emacs 20.7.2 (i386-debian-linux-gn
/archive/html/emacs-devel/2000-12/msg00032.html (14,918 bytes)

3. address@hidden: New paper on Emacs Lisp] (score: -7)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 19:46:28 -0700 (MST)
This paper might be very useful for making Emacs use Guile. I have not seen the paper itself. -- Start of forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 19:17:00 -0700 (MST) From: "Nelson H. F. Beebe" <
/archive/html/emacs-devel/2001-11/msg00979.html (6,673 bytes)

4. Re: backquote - old style (score: -7)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 15:08:55 -0500
The code is being slowly converted to new-style backquotes, so I don't think there will be too many objections. The only thing is that experience seems to show that converting is not as straightforw
/archive/html/emacs-devel/2001-11/msg01121.html (4,669 bytes)

5. Re: i18n/gettext? (score: -7)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 23:33:09 -0800 (PST)
The usual approach is to have a single catalog for each separately distributed package. For example, there's one catalog for diffutils, another catalog for textutils, etc. There isn't a separate cat
/archive/html/emacs-devel/2001-12/msg00502.html (8,859 bytes)

6. Re: Bug Report (Feature request?) etags (GNU Emacs 21.1) (score: -7)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:02:34 +0100 (CET)
Personally, I do not think we should burden ourselves with this at all. I certainly would not give a .web file to etags, and _not_ giving .web files to etags is easily automated :-) So I _believe_ t
/archive/html/emacs-devel/2002-02/msg00743.html (7,863 bytes)

7. Re: Bug Report (Feature request?) etags (GNU Emacs 21.1) (score: -7)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:27:04 -0500
(eval-when-compile (require 'aol)) (with-aol-mode (complete-agreement)) Stefan
/archive/html/emacs-devel/2002-02/msg00751.html (6,701 bytes)

8. Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date) (score: -7)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: 20 Apr 2002 19:06:32 -0700
Well, it could go different ways. I guess there's three different parts to this: 1. I want to have more ways to find the name of a function, variable, or mode that does X. X could be something as spe
/archive/html/emacs-devel/2002-04/msg00603.html (13,458 bytes)

9. Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date) (score: -7)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 09:48:26 +0300 (IDT)
Would be nice to have that, but it's a non-trivial project, I think. The rules for such reverse engineering are most of the time fuzzy, so it's not easy to program. Are you familiar with the cross-re
/archive/html/emacs-devel/2002-04/msg00617.html (9,606 bytes)

10. Re: how to find out methods for tramp? (score: -7)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: 19 Jun 2002 14:32:17 +0200
Can't you write some code in elisp which does this sort of thing automatically, and determines the best method to use for a given system? The automated detection can try the inline methods first, and
/archive/html/emacs-devel/2002-06/msg00471.html (7,152 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu