[Unless sanity has prevailed while I wasn't looking, this thread is illegal in Australia. I have two words for the censors in the Australian Government -- "Bite me."] Didier Verna <verna(a)inf.enst.fr&gt; writes in xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org: But there's nothing in it that would account for the backtrace William posted. terminal.el has a special exemption with regard to the language used in it. Ordinarily, I don't want code in XEmacs that will display such language to the user in messages (comments are fine). When the censors in the US passed the so-called "Communications Decency Act" Richard censored terminal.el and the rest of Emacs. XEmacs deliberately wasn't censored. Anyway, terminal.el has historical significance, even if it's in a deliberately ugly sort of way. Besides, under the prevailing XEmacs coding standards, if you patch an unmaintained package (like terminal.el) you become the owner of it, and the code in terminal.el is pretty much garbage nobody wants to maintain. If necessary, we can remove it altogether since we have eterm as a replacement.