On Monday 05 February 2007 22:33, you wrote:
Ville Skyttä <scop(a)xemacs.org> writes:
> On Monday 05 February 2007 17:19, Michael Sperber wrote:
>> Nobody commented on this a while back; I'm committing to flush my
>> workspace, and to maybe generate some feedback :-) (I do believe it's
>> the right thing.)
>
> Sorry, didn't get around to testing it. What's the relation of this
> patch to the Canna one I sent - should this one render it unnecessary?
I believe your Canna patch deleted a directory prefix from some module
name, right?
It did, cf.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.xemacs.patches/8044
If so, your patch should go in. (... and mine should
render Stephen's objection unnecessary) If not, it shouldn't.
I'm happy to take your word for it, but I don't claim to understand how after
the dir prefix removal, with plain (require 'CANNA "canna_api"
'no-error), an
in-place XEmacs would know how to load canna_api from the "canna" subdir even
after the path depth change... so I'm still a bit hesitant about applying my
original patch. Explicit approvals/vetos welcome ;)
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta