Re: subr.el (21.5.31) for 21.5.29
Ar an triochadú lá de mí Méan Fómhair, scríobh Stephen J. Turnbull:
Aidan Kehoe writes:
> That would work too, and is probably almost ideal for your
> circumstances. (Ideal, of course, would be to have the support for
> X-Symbol that you need included.)
Have you actually looked at either of the patches in question? The
patch to XEmacs 21.5 touches about 20 lines, gratuitously changes the
signature of half a dozen functions, and provides absolutely no
functionality. In short, it's an hideous hack.
The patch to X-Symbol simply marshals the arguments correctly
depending on whether the host is XEmacs 21.4 or XEmacs 21.5, and
changes about 3 lines. Works For Me[tm] and is obviously The Right
Thang[tm]. The only thing unpretty about it is the version
dependence, but that is due to the deliberate change in the type of
the MATCHSPEC argument to a number of specifier functions.
Given that it Works For You and is the Right Thing, why not commit it? Or at
least build a version of the package with that change and point Uwe towards
it, to make everyone that bit surer we’re all on the same page.
I have no idea why the latter doesn't work for Uwe when the
former
does, as they should be functionally equivalent.
--
‘Iodine deficiency was endemic in parts of the UK until, through what has been
described as “an unplanned and accidental public health triumph”, iodine was
added to cattle feed to improve milk production in the 1930s.’
(EN Pearce, Lancet, June 2011)
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta