Marcus Harnisch writes: Old code that works need not change. That's quite a different issue. It's this business of using old fragile hacks in new code that makes me puke when I look at GNU code. No. Why change what works? If somebody *wants* to do it, a patch will probably be accepted. So we have to wait for another decade because Emacs sucks even more than XEmacs does? The ONLY way to get Emacs developers to adopt modern practices is to get the code in front of their faces so that they realize that it's better (although that's not necessarily going to persuade them). Look, you're just going to end up with inversion-emacs-major-version inversion-emacs-minor-version etc etc (or the moral equivalents) anyway, right? How about wrapping the current code with (setq inversion-emacs-major-mode (when (boundp emacs-major-mode) emacs-major-mode) inversion-emacs-minor-mode (when (boundp emacs-minor-mode) emacs-minor-mode) ;; etc etc ;; if you want, we can even obsolete-alias the xemacs-* version ;; variables for future cross-emacs standardization but your code ;; will still need to deal with the old wacko xemacs-* versions. ) (unless (and inversion-emacs-major-mode inversion-emacs-minor-mode ;; etc etc ) (do-it-the-old-crufty-way-that-warms-rms's-heart)) and then you can modify the old crufty way to snaggle out only stuff that isn't available in native variables already, at some future date. _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta