Re: Hideshow
>>>> "Hrvoje" == Hrvoje Niksic
<hniksic(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Hrvoje> Jerry James <james(a)xemacs.org> writes:
> (1) The new hideshow.el uses overlays. That would mean yet
> another dependency in the packages on fsf-compat. Is that
> okay, or do we need to port it to use extents instead?
Hrvoje> Most packages don't use the very fancy features of
Hrvoje> extents/overlays, so porting is usually trivial. I don't
Hrvoje> think we should introduce new packages that depend on
Hrvoje> wobbly "compatibility" API's, and introducing the first
Hrvoje> one was in fact a huge mistake, second only to the mistake
Hrvoje> of putting fsf-compat in SUMO.
Heh. You've almost got me convinced to preapprove a patch to
substitute Scheme for elisp. ;-)
I think just about everybody but rms agrees that extents are at least
as good an interface as overlays, and most people think they're
better. However, as long as the GNU Emacs interface is overlays,
we're going to lose out on a fair number of nice packages that we
don't have the manpower to maintain. Not to mention the huge number
of packages that explicitly avoid using nice XEmacs features because
they don't work on GNU (and then adopt whatever anemic incompatible
thing GNU comes up with, cf toolbars).
Is it really worth it just to be right? What do we really get from
having the superior API here? Or with toolbars? Or glyphs? Or
specifiers? Or anything? :-(
--
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
ask what your business can "do for" free software.