Re: table.el
I wrote this on Jan 8th and forgot to send it out.
Wed, 08 Jan 2003 13:07:56 +0900: "Stephen J. Turnbull"
<stephen(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
>>>>> "Tak" == Tak Ota
<Takaaki.Ota(a)am.sony.com> writes:
Tak> I haven't extracted a stand-alone test case. The problem
Tak> seen when using table.el is when cells in a table like below
Tak> are merged, for example like this undoing reproduces the
Tak> original table below.
By "undoing" you mean M-x undo, and not M-x table-split-cell? But you
imply that table-split-cell also fails to work correctly?
"undoing" means M-x undo or regular C-_. table-split-cell probably
would fail since the cell structure is unexpected from table.el point
of view.
Tak> I'd rather stay away from ideology dispute between
two groups
Tak> but what I saw above seemed to be explained by that document.
It's not a question of ideology; it's a question of whether the
documentation is reliable. The text you cite encourages the belief
that the problem you encounter is in XEmacs by design
Yes, I thought so. If it is not then the document is indeed
deceiving.
and apparently discouraged you from reporting this as a bug until
now. :-(
If it is a bug you are right. I thought it was the feature by
design.
Whether we'll fix the behavior or the documentation, I can make
no
promises at this point. But certainly we should do one or the other.
I am glad having started this constructive dialogue because I
certainly hope table.el to be useful for XEmacs users too.