Re: find-function vs. Windows paths

>>>>> "Kyle" == Kyle Jones <kyle_jones(a)wonderworks.com&gt; writes: Kyle> Once running in place fom a source tree became an option I Kyle> never looked back. Uninstalling a source tree is easy. Yeah, I also just noticed that something I semi-rely on (that find-func finds the source library) doesn't work for autoloaded core Lisp. It finds them in the installed Lisp directory, of course. >> library on the path. I would prefer those semantics (rather >> than defaulting to searching load-path) to reduce the incidence >> of the FAQ, but maybe I'm just a worry-wart. Kyle> If "make install" is what we expect people to do, then the Kyle> wiping load-history and searching load-path should be the Kyle> default action. OK on defaulting to searching load-path, then. As Andy points out, a big hunk (and rapidly increasing) of our user population uses Windows binaries, either the netinstaller or InstallShield. The Unix-y solution (have the build process redump from the installed Lisp) isn't failsafe for binary distributions. I don't understand why wiping load-history is desirable, though. Shouldn't that be accurate? And it shouldn't hurt for it to be accurate. If we default to searching load-path, only those who know where to look will ever notice that load-history contains references to files that don't exist on their systems. If we do default to munging load-history, should we try to warn users that the libraries they're editing need to be explicitly loaded to get XEmacs to use them? -- Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN My nostalgia for Icon makes me forget about any of the bad things. I don't have much nostalgia for Perl, so its faults I remember. Scott Gilbert c.l.py