9:53 p.m.
Hi all
I was trying to get rebox2 to work on XEmacs, but we lack some
compatibility functions. Let me add that I am on the road and since my
laptop OS is Win7, I don't have access to an XEmacs more recent than
21.5.29. (Vin, would you have some time to provide new binaries?)
I can report partial success after defining the following
aliases/defuns. Maybe this is useful to some people.
;; Is there any reason for having both, #'move-beginning-of-line and
;; #'beginning-of-line? I believe Mike observed similar when porting
;; org-mode.
(unless (fboundp 'move-beginning-of-line)
(defalias 'move-beginning-of-line 'beginning-of-line))
(unless (fboundp 'move-end-of-line)
(defalias 'move-end-of-line 'end-of-line))
(unless (fboundp 'use-region-p)
(defalias 'use-region-p 'region-active-p))
(unless (fboundp 'looking-at-p)
(defun looking-at-p (regexp &optional buffer)
"This predicate function works like looking-at, but without updating
the match data."
(save-match-data
(looking-at regexp buffer))))
What's still missing are these:
#'called-interactively-p
Somehow this patch got never applied:
http://calypso.tux.org/pipermail/xemacs-patches/2011-August/010958.html
#'looking-back
#'sentence-end
This is probably due to a bug in rebox2.el here:
,----[ line 2649 ]
| (re-search-forward (concat (sentence-end)
| "$") (point-at-eol) t))
`----
Thanks
Marcus
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
4:41 a.m.
Marcus Harnisch writes:
;; Is there any reason for having both, #'move-beginning-of-line
and
;; #'beginning-of-line?
That is hideous. Who approved that, I wonder? Oh, I see. There's a
distinction between logical order and display order, so this must be
related to the recent introduction of bidi support in Emacs. We don't
support bidi (and if I have anything to say about it, it's still
hideous, and we'll provide significantly better names when we do
support bidi ;-), so just alias these.
I guesss they can go in simple.el where Emacs puts them for now, and
if and when we add bidi support, and choose to provide better names,
they can go into fsf-compat. They should be marked as compatibility
functions.
(unless (fboundp 'use-region-p)
(defalias 'use-region-p 'region-active-p))
I don't know what to do about this. This is semantically inaccurate,
IIRC. Probably this "defun-maybe" should be in the using file,
guarded as you have it.
(unless (fboundp 'looking-at-p)
(defun looking-at-p (regexp &optional buffer)
"This predicate function works like looking-at, but without updating
the match data."
(save-match-data
(looking-at regexp buffer))))
*sigh* We should sync this one. (What we should *really* do is go to
a Python-style API where a match object is returned, but I doubt
RMS will accept that as the default.)
#'called-interactively-p
Somehow this patch got never applied:
http://calypso.tux.org/pipermail/xemacs-patches/2011-August/010958.html
When that question originally came up a couple years ago, the
semantics were still under discussion at GNU. I guess it's stable
enough now to synch it.
#'looking-back
Already done in Mercurial.
#'sentence-end
Already done in Mercurial (but I don't understand the relevance of
this comment:
This is probably due to a bug in rebox2.el here:
,----[ line 2649 ]
| (re-search-forward (concat (sentence-end)
| "$") (point-at-eol) t))
`----
Where's the bug?)
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
12:56 p.m.
Hi Stephen
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Marcus Harnisch writes:
> (unless (fboundp 'use-region-p)
> (defalias 'use-region-p 'region-active-p))
I don't know what to do about this. This is semantically inaccurate,
IIRC.
,----[ http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/elisp/html_node/The-Region.html ]
| Function: use-region-p
|
| This function returns t if Transient Mark mode is enabled, the
| mark is active, and there's a valid region in the buffer. Commands
| that operate on the region (instead of on text near point) when
| there's an active mark should use this to test whether to do that.
`----
It is one of those things where for most practical purposes, the
similarity might be close enough.
> #'sentence-end
Already done in Mercurial (but I don't understand the relevance of
this comment:
> This is probably due to a bug in rebox2.el here:
My bad, sorry. No bug. I couldn't find any reference on the internet as
known to Google to a function #'sentence-end, so I thought that the
parentheses around sentence-end were accidental. I just found the
definition in paragraphs.el on bitbucket. Makes sense now.
Thanks
Marcus
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
8:02 a.m.
On Fri, Nov 18 2011, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Marcus Harnisch writes:
> ;; Is there any reason for having both, #'move-beginning-of-line and
> ;; #'beginning-of-line?
That is hideous. Who approved that, I wonder? Oh, I see. There's a
distinction between logical order and display order, so this must be
related to the recent introduction of bidi support in Emacs.
Nope, no relation to bidi:
,----[ ChangeLog.12 ]
| 2005-03-07 Kim F. Storm <storm(a)cua.dk>
|
| * simple.el (move-beginning-of-line): New command.
`----
> (unless (fboundp 'move-beginning-of-line)
> (defalias 'move-beginning-of-line 'beginning-of-line))
Is this code in a package?
,----[ (info "(elisp)Coding Conventions") ]
| * If a package needs to define an alias or a new function for
| compatibility with some other version of Emacs, name it with the
| package prefix, not with the raw name with which it occurs in the
| other version. Here is an example from Gnus, which provides many
| examples of such compatibility issues.
|
| (defalias 'gnus-point-at-bol
| (if (fboundp 'point-at-bol)
| 'point-at-bol
| 'line-beginning-position))
`----
Bye, Reiner.
--
,,,
(o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo--- | PGP key available | http://rsteib.home.pages.de/
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
3:42 a.m.
Reiner Steib writes:
On Fri, Nov 18 2011, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Marcus Harnisch writes:
>
> > ;; Is there any reason for having both, #'move-beginning-of-line and
> > ;; #'beginning-of-line?
>
> That is hideous. Who approved that, I wonder? Oh, I see. There's a
> distinction between logical order and display order, so this must be
> related to the recent introduction of bidi support in Emacs.
Nope, no relation to bidi:
,----[ ChangeLog.12 ]
| 2005-03-07 Kim F. Storm <storm(a)cua.dk>
|
| * simple.el (move-beginning-of-line): New command.
`----
This makes me sad.
>> (unless (fboundp 'move-beginning-of-line)
>> (defalias 'move-beginning-of-line 'beginning-of-line))
Is this code in a package?
AFAIK rebox2 is not a package distributed by XEmacs (not yet, anyway, I
don't know what Marcus's plan is). In any case, I assume the proposal
is to add the alias to XEmacs core or a standard compatibility package.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
2:40 p.m.
Hi Stephen, Reiner
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Reiner Steib writes:
> On Fri, Nov 18 2011, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>
> > That is hideous. Who approved that, I wonder? Oh, I see. There's a
> > distinction between logical order and display order, so this must be
> > related to the recent introduction of bidi support in Emacs.
>
> Nope, no relation to bidi:
This makes me sad.
So what *is* the difference between those two functions then?
AFAIK rebox2 is not a package distributed by XEmacs (not yet, anyway,
I
don't know what Marcus's plan is).
First of all I need to check whether I find the package useful at all.
Therefore, I want to compile it to see whether it is worth the effort. I
may decide adding it to an XEmacs package at some later stage.
In any case, I assume the proposal is to add the alias to XEmacs
core
or a standard compatibility package.
That was the idea. The functions are rather fundamental and are expected
to be widely used by packages with origins in Emacs. Correct me if I am
wrong, but I believe that defining those functions in a compatibility
package (perhaps before porting them to XEmacs properly) is the right
thing to do.
Thanks
Marcus
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
5:24 p.m.
Marcus Harnisch writes:
So what *is* the difference between those two functions then?
Not enough to be worth having both in core. :-( If a package needs
the alternative function, it should provide it.
> In any case, I assume the proposal is to add the alias to XEmacs
core
> or a standard compatibility package.
That was the idea. The functions are rather fundamental and are expected
to be widely used by packages with origins in Emacs. Correct me if I am
wrong, but I believe that defining those functions in a compatibility
package (perhaps before porting them to XEmacs properly) is the right
thing to do.
Probably. In theory the Lispref passage Reiner quoted is correct, but
we're not in a position to fight City Hall any more (if we ever
were). So I tend to think we should hold our noses and provide all
functions (including the really junky ones) that GNU does, unless they
deprecate them.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
4530
days inactive
4542
days old
6 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Marcus Harnisch -
Reiner Steib -
Stephen J. Turnbull