Darryl Okahata <darrylo(a)sr.hp.com&gt; writes: > > XEmacs accepted that option long before FSF introduced their own > > extension. The extension existed, and people would have used it. > > By removing it or tossing it around, I'm afraid we send a "fuck > > you" note to those of our users who actually care to use our > > extensions. > > Well, I suggested that on the theory that we want to keep XEmacs as > compatible as possible. Yes, this has often be the way we did things. But I'm not sure if it's a good idea, really. Smart people have said before: the more we try to emulate FSFmacs, the more we suffer. I'm guilty of that sin myself. I will not force redemption on anyone, though. If you take responsibility over the code, it's mostly up to your best judgement. The review board can still veto your decision, but I don't think that's likely to happen. > I understand that XEmacs is already incompatible in a number of > areas, but this parameter seemed almost like a > inadvertent/gratuitous incompatibility (perhaps I'm wrong, but that > was my first impression). It is my impression too, but the point is that Stallman doesn't seem to care about compatibility, so it's always up to us to make incompatible changes. How much more of that are we going to cater to?