I.e. you're not accustomed to the new commands. I'm not convinced we need both sets of commands in the same buffer at the same time. Ok, I am not sure either. I took Miles idea (as I understand it) i
/* Since the .el.elc rule cannot specify an extra dependency, we do it here. [...] */ ${lisp} ${SOME_MACHINE_LISP}: witness-emacs This trick doesn't appear to work with Solaris make. After `make all'
The new patch seems much, much better, but I did notice a few weird behaviors with Stefan's line-move-visual patch -- while moving with C-n/C-p in long wrapped line usually goes in a straight vertica
I certainly have. It's not a difficult interface to implement. Doing so _manually_ (as a shell script or something) is not particularly hard if you have simple needs. If you're using some other build
Hi, It would be cool to have shell libraries you could use for whipping your own configure. I.e. no m4 macros but powerful shell functions you can just call. That way you would install the `GNU build
Johannes Weiner wrote: Doing so _manually_ (as a shell script or something) is not particularly hard if you have simple needs. If you're using some other build tool, it should often be fairly straigh
Hi, To be honest, I couldn't give the slightest about w32. It's a pile of crap that should have never seen the light of day, all political issues left aside and I, FWIW, would not consider it when de
Johannes Weiner wrote: Doing so _manually_ (as a shell script or something) is not particularly hard if you have simple needs. If you're using some other build tool, it should often be fairly straig
Hi, No offence. You suggested it should work on Windows in a reply to me. So I stated my opinion about it. I am also interested in getting the free software movement forward. I just don't have any id
Johannes Weiner wrote: Doing so _manually_ (as a shell script or something) is not particularly hard if you have simple needs. If you're using some other build tool, it should often be fairly straig
Such arrogant nonsense can only be forgiven if it's spoken out of utter ignorance. Last time you took a good look at a Windows system was probably in 1998. Wake up! a lot has changed since then. Now
Hi, I can use a stripped-down version of GNU/Linux. I neither use KDE nor Gnome for example. A lot of the time I chose to a bare screen session on a VT without running X at all. But I could start a f
Hi, emacs, I've just done a cvs update in CVS head. I really wish I hadn't. I tried unadorned 'make'. This told me "can't find cl-compile-time-init" on an (include cl). What???? So back to 'make boot
... Emacs expects to find the DOC ... "make install" What would be ood would be to allow "run in place" as is done for X11. E.g. I basically *never* do "make install", I always just do "make" and th
Bruce Stephens wrote: Is this an abstract discussion or is it concretely about Emacs and CEDET? (I'm struggling to imagine what realistic benefit CEDET might get from a dynamic extension to Emacs. Ma
Hi, Again no threading info, sorry. This is in effect what is in CEDET/Semantic now but without the DL. I had made a replacement for flex, but more Emacs Lisp centric, and David Ponce ported bison in
No, this one was really genuine: Windows does undo by default *unless the drive is a network drive* -- then it doesn't. Windows moves files on drag-and-drop *unless it's across drives* -- then it cop
... Yes, I know (but thanks for the details). But "whatever inconsistent idea Window has come up upon" is perhaps a bit disparaging (though I tend to believe you did not notice yourself)? Not that I
Wrong on both counts. You seem to think I was addressing my posts only to you, but in fact I *succeeded* in explaining (as evidenced by offline thanks I have received) to others. The fact that that d