Hrvoje> Andy Piper <andyp(a)parallax.co.uk&gt; writes: Hrvoje> FSFmacs compatibility will be maintained in the same sense Hrvoje> as XEmacs compatibility. I am not interested in Hrvoje> compatibility with the new, Guile-ized FSFmacs. Too bad. I hoped we had a chance at selling you on Mule someday. :-) Seriously, without FSF compatibility at the Mule API level, Mule development will probably stop where it is now, in the sense that nobody on XEmacs is adding languages and linguistic capability etc AFAIK. I am not a Lisp theoretician or implementer so I am not making claims that substrate-level compatibility is necessary to Mule API compatibility. However, my experience with patching several Mule libraries suggests that the substrate often does protrude into the Mule API, and _especially_ in more recent (ie, without the benefit of Ben Wing's surgery) migrants from FSF-land. Erik Naggum's anti-Mule position adds to that feeling. Of course, we could take the approach that we've got a _lot_ of languages already, in particular the Han ideographic languages, and concentrate on providing I18N2 and I18N3 features. Let the Indic and R2L languages take care of themselves, or somebody can do the painful work of porting (when the FSF has them done, they don't, really, yet). Hrvoje> By any chance, have you seen a summoned 9th order fire Hrvoje> elemental wandering around? No? Oh.. Tell me if you do. I should live so long as to see one ... and survive the seeing. :-) -- University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences Tel/fax: +1 (298) 53-5091