>>>>> "Martin" == Martin Buchholz <martin(a)xemacs.org> writes:
>>>>> "MS" == Michael Sperber <sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
MS> Yo Martin, Stephen,
MS> could I get some feedback on this?
>>>>> "Moiself" == Michael Sperber <sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
Moiself> OK, I can see that. I hate the fact, however, that mule/ lives under
Moiself> lisp/ --- it's not a true reflection of the dependencies here. It
Moiself> would be much more natural, IMHO, to have a mule-lisp/ directory
Moiself> alongside lisp/.
Martin> Actually, I think that might be moving in the wrong direction. I
Martin> don't like how mule is singled out for being odd, for examples in
Martin> makefiles. I'd like to have no special treatment for mule files.
>> From a user's perspective, it makes perfect sense to have
Martin> lisp/
Martin> lisp/mule
Martin> lisp/ldap
Martin> lisp/C-LEVEL-FEATURE
Martin> where perhaps the directory lisp/C-LEVEL-FEATURE is only added to
Martin> load-path when FEATURE is available.
Well, I think coupling filename syntax with symbol syntax even more
tightly in this manner is a really bad idea. It would make more sense
to add some metainformation to those directories. (My package
redesign draft has provisions for this.)
Note that we're talking about Core Lisp here, not packages, and that,
as Stephen pointed out, Mule is different from the rest. Presently,
we're also not just talking about simple feature availability here: a
Mule XEmacs is an entirely different beast from a non-Mule one.
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla