21.4 better than 21.5?

[Rodney Sparapani]

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>  > We'd also need to do the sort of energetic Mac integration that
>  > Aquamacs did, something almost impossible without a fork. ("What do
>  > you mean you want to turn on CUA-mode by default?")
> 
> I don't see a need for a fork.  That's a much bigger problem in the
> GNU Church of Emacs than it is in relatively pragmatic XEmacs.
> (shifted-motion-selects-region, anyone?)  If that's what Mac users
> want, I don't have a problem with it.  We[1] should put some effort
> into documenting behaviors (especially for developers) and into
> turning that steaming pile of donkey-do-do known as "custom themes"
> into a useful feature.  If we had those, then we really could skin
> "classic Emacs" vs. "classy Mac".
> 
> 
> Footnotes: 
> [1]  For values of "we" actually including "me", in this case.

I'd be willing to test this as well.  However, mercurial is a mystery
to me.  But, I don't see the need to make XEmacs overly
Mac specific.  I think Aquamacs went overboard a little bit
and the integration provided by Cocoa GNU Emacs is plenty for me
(of course, it allows Alt/Option to be Meta which I appreciate).
If you want XEmacs, you probably want something that sticks to
what you already know from Unix, Windows, etc.  You want your
knowledge to be portable.  You don't want
to relearn XEmacs just to use it also on your Mac.  And, that's
what hurts me when I try to use Aquamacs.

-- 
Rodney Sparapani      Center for Patient Care & Outcomes Research (PCOR)
Sr. Biostatistician              http://www.mcw.edu/pcor
4 wheels good, 2 wheels better!  Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW)
WWLD?:  What Would Lombardi Do?  Milwaukee, WI, USA