>>>>> "Kyle" == Kyle Jones <kyle_jones(a)wonderworks.com> writes:
Kyle> Hrvoje Niksic writes:
>> sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) writes:
>> > Hrvoje> Micheal, is it possible to change the underlying
>> > Hrvoje> implementation and Lisp API, but still have `-u' work?
>> > I offered to do that further down in the same mail.
>> Great. Obviously I missed that part.
>> > Moiself> I can envision *replacing* -u by arguments along the lines
>> > Moiself> of "-user-init-file" and "-user-init-directory" for
>> > Moiself> ~/.emacs and ~/.xemacs, and providing something like -u
>> > Moiself> through that. How does that sound?
>> > So ...?
Kyle> I think that was the polite, understated moan of a man being
Kyle> painfully stretched on the rack. :)
Kyle> Why is init-file-user and -u such a big furball? Both are
Kyle> atavisms from teh dark ages,
Well, sure, and they're causing problems *now*. Follow this thread
upwards and you'll find that there are a number of *bugs* associated
with them. Real bugs affecting real people.
Kyle> and the docstring specifically
Kyle> mentions .emacs so there's no reason it _has_ to work with
Kyle> .xemacs, PACKAGEPATH and all that. Why can't it just be left
Kyle> alone, working imperfectly, just it does now?
1. Because some of the code assumes it works with .xemacs.
2. Because the purpose of -u is apparently so I can say "run with this
user's setup". Joe User would rightfully expect that this will
mean both .emacs and .xemacs.
Cheers =8-} Chipsy
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla