sb> O.K. Would it be acceptable to you to make `ebola' be a type sb> of error checking so you could disable it via configure? ie. sb> --error-checking=all-but-ebola? or something like that? This would error in Lisp, or to stderr as currently? I would prefer the latter, personally. How about the syntax --error-checking={all,none,default},<type>,no-<type>,...? Semantics would be the keywords `all', `none', and `default' set all the error checking flags (`default' being what the maintainer thinks is a good idea, and would be enforced in the absence of any of the three keywords), <type> sets that type of error checking ON, no-<type> sets it OFF, and last flag wins (so for example "ebola,none" would result in Ebola checking OFF). A different question sparked by this thread: I just managed to track down a spurious Ebola warning in AUC-TeX caused by `preceding-char', which would be eliminated by replacing it with `char-before'. Is "obsolete" more or less consistent between XEmacs and the FSF's version, so that changes like this would be acceptable to maintainers in general? If not, is there any way to find out short of installing Emacs 20.x? -- 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 two straight lines for? "Free software rules."