Re: Reducing the number of '*lock|shot*' packages

Nix> Bigger regexps can make the fontification process slower Nix> faster than fast hardware can make it faster; we need a lazy Nix> locking package to cater for that. Why did you ruin that beautiful sentence with a second clause? :-) Nix> (Another (obvious) reason: if you remove one of them, you'll Nix> annoy people who're using the one you remove. I thought Yes, but we _can_ boot their lazy slow asses into Steve Youngs's territory where they belong. Except for lazy-shot, which has C support that does not have a well-defined API. :-( Nix> XEmacs kept old features around in case they were useful, viz Nix> extents versus text properties, or the multiple packages to Nix> compress and encrypt buffers and mail? ;) ) Wrong on all of them. Extents are objects, and can have properties assigned to them. Text properties are not objects, and cannot be. Both interfaces are useful, and not "just in case" either. As for the multiple compress/encrypt packages, we have to deal with people who have correspondents who have not gotten The Word and don't use the Authorized Versions. I think if you checked you'd discover that a lot of features you can't find a use for _are_ being used. That's a waste of your time though. It's multiple implementations we need to do something about. -- University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091 _________________ _________________ _________________ _________________ What are those straight lines for? "XEmacs rules."