8:28 a.m.
Redirected to xemacs-bet＠.
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>>>>> "SY" == Steve Youngs
<youngs(a)xemacs.org> writes:
SY> Thanks very much for this contribution, John! I'll commit
SY> this to 21.5 shortly.
We should consider doing this the other way around. Ie, standardize
on the GNU terminology, while maintaining ours as obsolete.
Comments?
Don't tell _me_ we were first, tell _them_.
I think we should standardize on what we think is the better
terminology. In that particular case, I find theirs better :-)
--
Didier Verna, didier(a)lrde.epita.fr, http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier
EPITA / LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire Tel.+33 (1) 53 14 59 47
94276 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France Fax.+33 (1) 53 14 59 22 didier(a)xemacs.org
8:48 a.m.
New subject: [APPROVE COMMIT] Re: [patch] obsolete.el: new alias interactive-form for function-interactive
>>>> "drv" == Didier Verna
<didier(a)xemacs.org> writes:
drv> I think we should standardize on what we think is the
drv> better terminology. In that particular case, I find theirs
drv> better :-)
Agreed. However, my definition of "better" is based on "what will
most of the library maintainers be happier to use?" In this case, if
we had "interactive-form" and they "function-interactive", I'd go
with
"interactive-form", definitely.
But if it's just a small difference (say, "interactive-specification",
which is more precise and thus better than "interactive-form"), I'd
say go with GNU's terminology, and obsolete ours, because that causes
less annoyance for people porting for GNU to XEmacs.
--
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Don't ask how you can "do" free software business;
ask what your business can "do for" free software.
10:23 p.m.
New subject: [APPROVE COMMIT] Re: [patch] obsolete.el: new alias interactive-form for function-interactive
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
>>>>> "drv" == Didier Verna
<didier(a)xemacs.org> writes:
drv> I think we should standardize on what we think is the
drv> better terminology. In that particular case, I find theirs
drv> better :-)
Agreed. However, my definition of "better" is based on "what will
most of the library maintainers be happier to use?" In this case, if
we had "interactive-form" and they "function-interactive", I'd go
with
"interactive-form", definitely.
But if it's just a small difference (say, "interactive-specification",
which is more precise and thus better than "interactive-form"), I'd
say go with GNU's terminology, and obsolete ours, because that causes
less annoyance for people porting for GNU to XEmacs.
I think "interactive-form" is the better name. I've submitted another
patch to obsolete.el adding "makehash" and "frame-parameter" and it
strikes me that this may be the wrong way to go about adding GNU
compatibility.
Perhaps there should be a file for new compatibility aliases and
wrappers in the xemacs-base package? Then the present installed base
would become more compatible simply by upgrading their packages.
--
John Paul Wallington
4:12 a.m.
New subject: [APPROVE COMMIT] Re: [patch] obsolete.el: new alias interactive-form for function-interactive
>>>> "jpw" == John Paul Wallington
<jpw(a)shootybangbang.com> writes:
jpw> Perhaps there should be a file for new compatibility aliases
jpw> and wrappers in the xemacs-base package? Then the present
jpw> installed base would become more compatible simply by
jpw> upgrading their packages.
We already do have fsf-compat. But I don't think it's a good idea to
put stuff into the packages without either a careful audit or testing
in the beta series. In many cases the functionality is "subtly
different" (as Eli puts it, cf the several recent threads on how their
differently named delete-key-deletes-forward functionality isn't
working right) and often depends on recently added functionality in
the various Emacsen, to boot.
This just isn't going to get solved until they are willing to
cooperate on defining APIs. As of a year ago the word from Gerd was
"too busy", and that would seem to continue to be the case.
--
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Don't ask how you can "do" free software business;
ask what your business can "do for" free software.
5:40 a.m.
New subject: [APPROVE COMMIT] Re: [patch] obsolete.el: new alias interactive-form for function-interactive
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
This just isn't going to get solved until they are willing to
cooperate on defining APIs.
Perhaps Emacs 22 will be a specification with a couple of
implementations.
--
John Paul Wallington
8:15 a.m.
New subject: [APPROVE COMMIT] Re: [patch] obsolete.el: new alias interactive-form for function-interactive
On Wed, 02 Jan 2002 05:40:55 GMT, John Paul Wallington said:
Perhaps Emacs 22 will be a specification with a couple of
implementations.
Would that be in the IETF sense, or the ITU sense? ;)
Sorry, I couldn't resist. ;)
8360
days inactive
8362
days old
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Didier Verna -
John Paul Wallington -
Stephen J. Turnbull -
Valdis Kl=?iso8859-4?Q?=BA?=tnieks