[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: address@hidden: Font Lock on-the-fly misfontification in C++]

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: address@hidden: Font Lock on-the-fly misfontification in C++]
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 11:57:22 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Aidan Kehoe <address@hidden> writes:

>  Ar an t-aonú lá is triochad de mí Iúil, scríobh Richard Stallman: 
>  > To speak of "GNU Emacs" and "XEmacs" gives the impression that XEmacs has
>  > nothing to do with GNU. Since XEmacs is a forked version of Emacs, that
>  > is a misleading impression. Please write "Emacs" and "XEmacs", or else
>  > "GNU Emacs" and "GNU XEmacs".
> Substantial parts of the code of XEmacs are not copyrighted by the
> FSF, the legal entity stewarding the GNU project, and this is almost
> certain to remain so. The XEmacs project members do not consider the
> advancement of the GNU project as a significant part of our job. We
> use the term XEmacs, we never use the term GNU XEmacs.

And we use the term "Emacs" for referring to Emacs.  When the term
"GNU Emacs" is used, it is to draw attention to the GNU project and
the part Emacs plays within it, not to insinuate that the scope of
Emacs is supposed to be restricted to within GNU.

Contrasting "XEmacs" and "GNU Emacs" is therefore misleading.  The
proper names of the editors are "Emacs" and "XEmacs".  "GNU Emacs" is
a distinction, but not one differentiating Emacs and XEmacs.

> If you want to be wilfully disrespectful to the members of the
> XEmacs project, use GNU XEmacs to refer to the editor; otherwise,
> the established usage, XEmacs on its own, will raise fewer hackles
> and doesn’t require you to think extra hard every time you mention
> the editor.

The same goes for Emacs.  Here is the passage from the Emacs FAQ:

(info "(efaq) Difference between Emacs and XEmacs")

       If you want to talk about these two versions and distinguish
    them, please call them "Emacs" and "XEmacs."  To contrast "XEmacs"
    with "GNU Emacs" would be misleading, since XEmacs too has its
    origin in the work of the GNU Project.  Terms such as "Emacsen"
    and "(X)Emacs" are not wrong, but they are not very clear, so it
    is better to write "Emacs and XEmacs."

I don't think it too onerous to expect that XEmacs developers call
Emacs "Emacs".  The stance that "Emacs" is supposed to mean "Emacs and
XEmacs" and only "GNU Emacs" is supposed to carry the meaning "Emacs"
is not really helpful, not even to XEmacs users.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

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