[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Strange change in bytecmop.el

From: Juanma Barranquero
Subject: Re: Strange change in bytecmop.el
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:09:42 +0200

On 7/26/05, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:

> So, just _when_ would you use it?

Me? I wouldn't use it. I don't develop packages with XEmacs as the
primary target. I don't ever intend to.

> You just said above that making the distinction only makes sense for
> packages maintained externally.

And so, what? Obviously, if we added the feature 'emacs it *would not*
be for us to use, just to help outside developers. That's the exact
same reason why some functions we've added are XEmacs-compatible (I
just happen to hate the names `define-obsolete-function-alias' and
`define-obsolete-variable-alias', which I would make shorter in a
blink, but they were added as such because XEmacs already define them,

> I don't see that.  I am afraid of people putting (boundp 'emacs) into
> code also for things that Emacs happens to have _now_, even though
> XEmacs might gain them in a later synch, or just putting (boundp
> 'emacs) habitually in without thinking anything about it.

That's no different of using "(fboundp 'feature-such-and-such)" for
features Emacs already have. And, worrying about people using things
without thinking smells a bit of patronizing, to me. (No insult
intended, I can assure you.)

> I really think that this is one change that we are better off without.

I didn't propose it, so I'm hardly going to enter a fight for it. I
just happen to think is not only not as outrageous as you made it
sound (when you said "This is so backwards that I consider it
repulsive."), but I even think that could be useful.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]