[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: isearch multiple buffers

From: Dan Nicolaescu
Subject: Re: isearch multiple buffers
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:16:26 -0700

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

  > > Cc: address@hidden
  > > From: Miles Bader <address@hidden>
  > > Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:55:20 +0900
  > > 
  > > Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
  > > >> Er, I was arguing for _dropping_ support for msdos, even if continuing
  > > >> it proves possible.
  > > >
  > > > But no one is supporting it except myself, for years.  This support
  > > > costs the rest of maintainers exactly zero effort.  So why should
  > > > someone except myself be bothered about it?
  > > 
  > > Because the 8.3 name restriction has a negative effect for _all_
  > > developers.
  > What negative effects? can you show them in the archives?  AFAIR, this
  > is about the first such issue in years.

Here are quite a few exmaples: go to http://search.gmane.org/ search
for 8.3 and use "gmane.emacs.devel" for "In group". It produces a good
amount of hits. 

Another situation where the DOS port had to be taken into account:
recently I wanted to clean up the code and get rid of the MULTI_KBOARD
#ifdefs. You asked me not to because the MSDOS port might need it. I
am 100% convinced that it won't be needed, but preferred to drop the
issue rather that try to convince you of this. 
Also, there are a LOT of DOS #ifdefs in the code that we could get rid
of, that should simplify future maintenance. 

So yes, the fact that the DOS code is present has an impact on
everyone that does work on emacs. As long as there are users for that
code this is fine, but there's no evidence that there are such users.

reply via email to

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