April 2000 - XEmacs-Beta - XEmacs Mailing List Archives

bug in gdb lisp interface, or line numbering, or where? 24 years

Emmanuel Michon

Hi, I don't know who should be held responsible for the following bug (and if it's the right place to discuss about that) but: transform the line ends of the file given at the end into dos style ^M^J (I have to edit maintain compile and debug dos style source code). I'm using xemacs 21.2 beta 26 with mule enabled so that I can edit such files: the modeline shows ISO8:T. This file can be compiled with gcc-2.95 (older gcc's will not accept the \^M^J as a macro continuation). When you try to debug it with Meta-gdb the highlighted line is just not the good one (the line shift is the number of macro continuations). One more question: which variable should I tweak to change the color of this highlighting? Thanks a lot badlinenumbering.c ----------------------------------- #define MULTILINEMACRO doing \ absolutely \ nothing \ but \ confusing \ line \ numbering int main() { int x=0; int y=0; x=2; y=2; exit(0); } ---------------------------------------------------- -- Emmanuel Michon Ingénieur en développement logiciel REALmagic France Mobile: 0662834836 GPGkeyID: 8782772B

1 participants
0 comments

Re: [reformated] Re: proposed Eistring interface 24 years

Hrvoje Niksic

Ben Wing <ben(a)666.com> writes: > > > > - we'll need a kind of sprintf > > > > > > probably true ... but you could always pull out the raw data > > > and use doprnt(). > > > > Yikes. What about mule? > > completely mule-safe. i know -- i rewrote it from scratch to be > this way. We're talking about XEmacs doprnt(), right? Note that some libc implementations also have a user-callable doprnt() function used by some unclean programs. Olivier might have thought on that one when he questioned its Mule integrity.

1 participants
0 comments

Use consistently the syntax #ifdef FEATURE, not #if FEATURE. 24 years

Stephen J. Turnbull

What's wrong with #if defined(FEATURE)? In the stuff I'm doing to encapsulate UTF-2000, I have a lot of #if defined(UTF2000) /* handle UTF-8 bufbytes and UCS-4 emchars */ #elif defined(MULE) /* handle leading byte representation */ #else /* --wthout-mule case */ #endif I'm not terribly happy with it, but it's the most readable idiom I've come up with. I use #ifdef for two-way branches; that helps to visually distinguish the multibranch case. Is that unacceptable? -- University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091 _________________ _________________ _________________ _________________ What are those straight lines for? "XEmacs rules."

2 participants
1 comments

Re: Milestone 1 submission... 24 years

William M. Perry

Andrew J Cosgriff <ajc(a)polydistortion.net> writes: > William M. Perry wrote : > > > > > I keep hoping that it will get fast enough. :) > > > > > > Not in the near future -- the canvas is really slow, especially so > > > when you turn on anti-aliasing. The idea of using canvas to > > > implement the XEmacs editing window really sounds like a cool > > > hack, but it shouldn't be confused with reality. > > > > Well, we could double-buffer everything, extend redisplay to be > > multithreaded, and require a dual cpu alpha to run. :) > > Who needs SETI＠Home when you can use your co-worker's spare CPU power > to run Emacs ? Hey... I like that idea. We could call it 'XEmacs＠Home' and say that we are harnessing your CPU power to find the biggest geeks in the world, who happen to be hiding behind beautifully rendered XEmacs screens. :) -bp

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Milestone 1 submission... 24 years

Andrew J Cosgriff

William M. Perry wrote : > > > I keep hoping that it will get fast enough. :) > > > > Not in the near future -- the canvas is really slow, especially so > > when you turn on anti-aliasing. The idea of using canvas to > > implement the XEmacs editing window really sounds like a cool > > hack, but it shouldn't be confused with reality. > > Well, we could double-buffer everything, extend redisplay to be > multithreaded, and require a dual cpu alpha to run. :) Who needs SETI＠Home when you can use your co-worker's spare CPU power to run Emacs ? :P -- Andrew J Cosgriff <ajc(a)polydistortion.net> drowning in thin air

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Progress gauge height 24 years

Hrvoje Niksic

Andy Piper <andy(a)xemacs.org> writes: > Progress history, yes - I agree that its not necessary, but given > that it works I am unwilling to change it myself. Note that you need > to be very careful in changing this code since you can easily break > layout optimization. What layout optimization?

2 participants
1 comments

gtk status update.... 24 years

William M. Perry

I got tired of writing spec documents and started hacking some code for the really basic integration, and I've got a (tty-only right now) XEmacs that is using the Gtk / Gdk event loop to drive it. I didn't trust it quite enough to write this email message, but it does appear to work. There is something weird with the QUIT macro stuff, but... baby steps. :) -Bill P.

1 participants
0 comments

Re: efs and custom 24 years

Raymond Toy

>>>>> "John" == John A Turner <turner(a)blueskystudios.com> writes: >>>>> "PA" == Per Abrahamsen <abraham(a)dina.kvl.dk>: >> "John A. Turner" <turner(a)blueskystudios.com> writes: >>> I'm curious - how many developers out there have a near-minimal base .emacs >>> with all customization possible done via customize? PA> You can't, customize only handles a subset of the things you would PA> want to customize. Symbol properties and specifiers aren't handled PA> (except though kludges) nor are something as basic ot an editor as key PA> bindings. And of course, a developer will want to add new PA> functionality, which is outside the scope of what customize _should_ PA> do. John> understood - that's what I meant by "near-minimal" and "all customization John> possible" - admittedly not the best wording, esp. the latter John> guess I meant "all customizable customization" or "all customize-enabled John> customization" or "all customization with a controlling legal authority" I have a fairly minimal base .emacs. When I decided to switch to customize many months ago, I tried to convert everything at that time to customize. If more things have customize interfaces now, then I haven't made that change yet. I also haven't migrated all of my hooks to customize yet. Ray

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Milestone 1 submission... 24 years

William M. Perry

Per Abrahamsen <abraham(a)dina.kvl.dk> writes: > wmperry(a)aventail.com (William M. Perry) writes: > > > Andy Piper <andy(a)xemacs.ORG> writes: > > > > > At 07:22 PM 4/15/00 -0700, Ben Wing wrote: > > > >hasn't andy already created a bunch of abstract interfaces onto widgets? > > > > > > Well, extended the glyph syntax is probably more accurate. But the syntax > > > is abstract and does work, even if it is very simple. > > > > I really don't like the thought of writing a complex gui as a bunch of > > glyph instantiators either. For things that will be going in the gutter > > this is doable, but writing something like the `customize' interface from > > sawmill would be ... not fun. > > You can write a high-level API on top of a low-level API. This is what > widget.el does, can't you use the widget.el framework to provide a more > convenient interface to a glyph based implementation? For things that go in buffers, maybe. But this is supposed to be for apps that are not in a buffer. Adding all the layout managers and things to widget would be kind of... icky. :) And not readily doable in text mode. Although if someone ever wrote a text version of this, I'd have to buy them lots of beer (and probably sedatives). -bp

1 participants
0 comments

Re: efs and custom 24 years

Per Abrahamsen

"John A. Turner" <turner(a)blueskystudios.com> writes: > I'm curious - how many developers out there have a near-minimal base .emacs > with all customization possible done via customize? You can't, customize only handles a subset of the things you would want to customize. Symbol properties and specifiers aren't handled (except though kludges) nor are something as basic ot an editor as key bindings. And of course, a developer will want to add new functionality, which is outside the scope of what customize _should_ do.

2 participants
1 comments

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

XEmacs-Beta April 2000