Re: Porting rebox2 and GNU Emacs portability
Marcus Harnisch writes:
So what *is* the difference between those two functions then?
Not enough to be worth having both in core. :-( If a package needs
the alternative function, it should provide it.
> In any case, I assume the proposal is to add the alias to XEmacs
core
> or a standard compatibility package.
That was the idea. The functions are rather fundamental and are expected
to be widely used by packages with origins in Emacs. Correct me if I am
wrong, but I believe that defining those functions in a compatibility
package (perhaps before porting them to XEmacs properly) is the right
thing to do.
Probably. In theory the Lispref passage Reiner quoted is correct, but
we're not in a position to fight City Hall any more (if we ever
were). So I tend to think we should hold our noses and provide all
functions (including the really junky ones) that GNU does, unless they
deprecate them.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta