Re: org-export raises stringp nil error

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden,
>     address@hidden
> Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 21:41:57 +0900
> 
> Eli Zaretskii writes:
> 
>  > > You've spent too much time listening to David Kastrup, and not really
>  > > understanding what he was saying, I think.
>  > 
>  > No, I've read the relevant discussions (quite some time ago) and made
>  > my own conclusions.
> 
> I'm not sure what discussions you think are relevant.  If they're not
> the ones with David, which do you have in mind?

I no longer remember, as it was long ago.  I'm sure people who are
interested can find them.  I vaguely remember that at least some of
them were on this list.

>  > > So, yes, if the fork were an "experiment", in that sense it is
>  > > failing.
>  > 
>  > I was only talking about the core and packages in XEmacs, not about
>  > the fork.
> 
> If so, I have no idea why you came to the conclusion it's a failed
> experiment.

Because many (most?) users want the whole deal.  As one Stephen
Turnbull says on this page:

  http://www.xemacs.org/Releases/Public-21.2/projects/sumo.html

and I quote: "The packages are popular, but the typical user of the
core tarball wants the kitchen sink."