[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [AUCTeX] Re: Possibly broken Auctex by installing EmacsW32

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: [AUCTeX] Re: Possibly broken Auctex by installing EmacsW32
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:48:53 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Brian Elmegaard <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
>> So install the precompiled Emacs/AUCTeX bundle.
> But I /would/ like the both the EmacsW32 features and auctex.

Then it would make more sense to complain to the author of EmacsW32
that it comes without AUCTeX than to complain to the authors of AUCTeX
that it comes without EmacsW32.

> Now, I do. I found that the problem is actually solved.
>>> 4: configure: error: (X)Emacs not found!. Aborting!
>> contains very detailed step-by-step instructions,
> My mistake. I thought it was xemacs it did not find.

Congrats, that's a new one.  I guess we'll not run out of possible
mistakes to make anytime soon.  Shows the wisdom of 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

And this particular case of "(X)Emacs" seems to be of the "not wrong,
but not very clear" variety.  So we'd better write "Emacs or XEmacs"

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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