Re: RFC: status icon support

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "rms" == Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

rms> We should not create a new data type for status icons unless there is
rms> a compelling reason for it -- that is to say, not making the data type
rms> would imply serious problems or ugliness.

rms> What is the motive for this data type?  Is it so as to handle X events
rms> for the icon?

There's no deep reason for it, it is just the approach I picked, by
analogy to frames and other programming languages, where adding new
types is unexceptional.  I don't mind changing it to be a cons if that
is the preferred Emacs way.

Tom