Porting rebox2 and GNU Emacs portability

Marcus Harnisch writes: That is hideous. Who approved that, I wonder? Oh, I see. There's a distinction between logical order and display order, so this must be related to the recent introduction of bidi support in Emacs. We don't support bidi (and if I have anything to say about it, it's still hideous, and we'll provide significantly better names when we do support bidi ;-), so just alias these. I guesss they can go in simple.el where Emacs puts them for now, and if and when we add bidi support, and choose to provide better names, they can go into fsf-compat. They should be marked as compatibility functions. I don't know what to do about this. This is semantically inaccurate, IIRC. Probably this "defun-maybe" should be in the using file, guarded as you have it. *sigh* We should sync this one. (What we should *really* do is go to a Python-style API where a match object is returned, but I doubt RMS will accept that as the default.) When that question originally came up a couple years ago, the semantics were still under discussion at GNU. I guess it's stable enough now to synch it. Already done in Mercurial. Already done in Mercurial (but I don't understand the relevance of this comment: Where's the bug?) _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta