SL Baur <steve(a)xemacs.org> writes:
> Hrvoje> add-submenu and add-menu-button are the only Right,
> Hrvoje> Documented Interfaces.
>
> I don't wish add-submenu and add-menu-button obsoleted, btw.
As I said before, when you say that "easy menu is the official menu
interface now", as well as when you replace every instance of
add-menu-button/add-submenu with the appropriate easymenu calls, you
are /de facto/ obsoleting the old calls, whether it is your intention
or not.
> > This was also the impression I had.
>
> What exactly is wrong with easymenu? It is a much simpler API for
> putting up menus and popups than the raw calls are.
First, I don't see how it is any simpler. The "raw" add-menu-button
looks simple enough for me. Simpler than easymenu, in fact.
Second, Easymenu has bogus hard-coded behaviour. I often don't *want*
the popup menus to be an identical copy of the menubar menus. Some
things I do want, like creating buffer-local menubars (see VM or W3
for examples), do not appear to be possible.
Of course, one could improve easymenu to allow all these things, but I
don't see the use of such effort over enhancing our existing menubar
code.
> What is so wrong about standardizing on an already fairly standard
> interface (formally undocumented though it may be)?
I don't see a good reason to promote easymenu in that fashion.
Currently XEmacs supports the new add-{submenu,menu-button} functions
and the old add-menu. When an external package desires FSFmacs
compatibility, it's free to use easymenu.
--
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
Ooh, Granny, what a BIG belly-button you have!
