On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 04:48:05PM +0100, Hrvoje Niksic wrote: I had always assumed this. Here is why: When I originally did the modules work, I saw it as an extension to the C code that was un the pure, undumped emacs, not as a generic extend-all- things-for-all-apps tool. Since there are large portions of code that will not be executed in a given environment (like X stuff in TTY mode and vice versa), and that there are some packages which are in Lisp but really could benefit HUGELY from being written in C (like W3), I felt that the modules support would be sufficient if we only guarnateed "per release" compatibility. For example, suppose you had foo.c, which implemens some cool new function. Just picture how foo.c would be used in a world without modules. You would HAVE to recompile it if you made a change, becuase it would have to go into the bare emacs. Modules should be no different. This makes it possible to link modules in statically *IF YOU WANT TO*. Much like Apache does things. For each module, you can either have it loaded dynamically or compiled statically into the server. The same rules should apply to modules. Now, having said all of that, there is a back door way out. If we know that between two releases there are no changes that would break compiled modules, we dont change the module version number. If we ever change things inside the basic emacs code that would break modules, we bump up the emodules support version and previous modules will fail to load and the user will have to recompile the module. But lets be honest, not many users will be compiling modules anayway. They will be pulling down a binary distribution from some- place on the net and I think we can assume at least SOME level of competance on the part of the person putting together the package. If that person has any clue at all, they would probably get the latest and greatest version of any given module and recompile it anyway. The ellcc compiler relies on the fact that the header files that were used at the time that XEmacs was build will be present when you compile the module. Thus, recompiling a module is always guaranteed to have the same set of features / misfeatures / macros / internval view / whatever that a file in src/ would have. -- J. Kean Johnston | "All thoughts, all passions, all delights, | Whatever stirs this mortal frame, Engineer, SPG | All are but ministers of Love, Santa Cruz, CA | And feed his sacred flame." Tel: 831-427-7569 | Samuel Taylor Coleridge - "Love" Fax: 831-429-1887 +-----------------------------------------------------------