Re: replace-match: GNU vs XEmacs
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> wrote:
Darryl Okahata <darrylo(a)sr.hp.com> writes:
> The best solution is would be to shift the XEmacs-specific option
> over once place (make it the sixth option),
Would it really be the best solution?
XEmacs accepted that option long before FSF introduced their own
extension. The extension existed, and people would have used it. By
removing it or tossing it around, I'm afraid we send a "fuck you" note
to those of our users who actually care to use our extensions.
Well, I suggested that on the theory that we want to keep XEmacs as
compatible as possible. I understand that XEmacs is already
incompatible in a number of areas, but this parameter seemed almost like
a inadvertent/gratuitous incompatibility (perhaps I'm wrong, but that
was my first impression).
> An ugly, kludgy solution would be to test the type of the fifth
> parameter;
That's what I did for `buffer-string'; however, I did it only because
the FSF version really made more sense. And yet, even with the
compatibility fix, my solution broke in some cases and had to be fixed
by wmperry.
Well, I'm willing to implement either (or some other) solution. I
just want to know what to do.
--
Darryl Okahata
darrylo(a)sr.hp.com
DISCLAIMER: this message is the author's personal opinion and does not
constitute the support, opinion, or policy of Hewlett-Packard, or of the
little green men that have been following him all day.