Kyle Jones <kyle_jones(a)wonderworks.com> writes:
Clearly we shouldn't punish our users for the sake of Emacs
compatibility. The incompatibility problem is never going to go
away, so we should lay out a general policy as to how we deal
with API imcompatibilities, assuming that we do anything at all.
For example, we could set aside part of the namespace, e.g.
fsf-compat-*, and put all the FSF compatibility functions
there. fsf-compat-replace-match would be the Emacs compatible
replace-match function. I would prefer this approach, instead
of doing tricks with replace-match's argument types.
This seems like a fine idea. I would be tempted to do more: when
there are functions like replace-match which are incompatibly defined,
I would want three functions:
fsf-compat-replace-match
xemacs-compat-replace-match
replace-match (an alias for xemacs-compat-replace-match)
This way people who switch between GNU Emacs and XEmacs can explicitly
choose which version of the function they want to use, at least in
code for XEmacs. It also suggests names for GNU Emacs developers to
use, if they decide to add XEmacs-compatible versions of things.
--
John H. Palmieri
Dept of Mathematics, Box 354350 palmieri(a)math.washington.edu
University of Washington
http://www.math.washington.edu/~palmieri
Seattle, WA 98195-4350