Valdis> What set me off ranting was use of a specifier for Valdis> toolbars. The more generic issue of using specifiers Valdis> instead of -p variable is one that needs to be resolved, Valdis> no matter WHAT the gutter API is doing. I think specifiers are The Right Way[1] of doing this, but I agree with you that the UI (you can read about it by doing `less /dev/null') leaves a lot to be desired. What to do about it is something else. I think the most common user operation on variables implemented as specifiers is probably "I hate this, so ZAP! (setq feature-aka-bug-p nil)". We ought to be able to implement this conveniently. It probably would be possible to get setq to recognize specifiers, but it's not clear what it should do with them. Is it unacceptable to have to use a different interface, which would preferably be as simple as `setq', say `(set-specifier-somehow-do-the-right-thing spec value)' (at least with optional args defaulted)? Of course specifier variables would have to be documented, user variables indicated, and the user interface documented as well. Probably most users would want to use custom to deal with specifiers. Maybe the above would simply be `customize-specifier' (although using custom's functions directly is often dangerous). Footnotes: [1] [tm] It's possible that specifiers are a partially failed experiment and should never be allowed to raise their ugly heads, but I think the real problem is that the specifier UI is non-existent and the API confusing, so that even XEmacs developers don't use them much. -- 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."

At 09:54 AM 2/1/00 +0100, Jan Vroonhof wrote: Or even until the gutter is more or less stable .... andy -------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Andy Piper Senior Consultant Architect, BEA Systems Ltd