Re: "Emacs 21"

[Stuart D. Herring]

> Would someone please volunteer to check all uses of "21" in the
> manuals to make sure there is nothing which inappropriately presume
> that is the version number?  Antinews should say it is for version 21,
> but nothing else should.

OK, I've looked at the Lisp Introduction now; it's more complicated.  The
number 21 is used on 75 lines; 54 of these are non-comment references to
the version number (instead of just the integer).  15 of those are
references to the CVS version 21.0.100 (presumably current at the time of
writing), including in example pathnames.  (There are already comments
noting this inclusion.)  Most of the rest are comparisons between 20 (or
19) and 21 in terms of error reporting, mark handling, echo area resizing,
and mode line formats.

A few examples detect the version of Emacs, but do so using string
comparison against `emacs-version' rather than the numeric variables, and
phrase the result in terms of "21" or "not 21", so that's an implication
of currency as well.

So I imagine that the version-detection examples need to be changed
(although I see nothing wrong with determining ">=21" and "<21"), and the
comparisons need to note that they apply to 21 or later.  I'm not sure
what to do with the CVS references.  Any thoughts?  If there's a
consensus, I can do the changes, but I'd like to know what they should be
first.

Davis

-- 
This product is sold by volume, not by mass.  If it appears too dense or
too sparse, it is because mass-energy conversion has occurred during
shipping.