On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 12:51:21 +0900, Stephen wrote:
Normally, when someone comments on an issue, others assume he has
interest *and will follow up*.
Ok, I guess I am just not used to this kind of "onemanship" in Free
I am more used to "everybody pitches in with whatever they have time for
to keep the ball moving forward", rather than "if anybody has responded
at all, it is their responsibility to take it all the way".
> I see that I have been totally unable to convey my message to you
No, I understand exactly what you're saying. I'm simply
why things work (or don't work, if you prefer) the way they do.
I am sorry, but we will have to disagree on this.
If I had been able to express myself clearly, you would never have
mailed the patches I sent here to xemacs-patches.
Since you feel it necessary to shout, I'll be more specific. My
knee-jerk response is "this kind of logic belongs in configure.ac (or
perhaps config.h.in), not in a .c file, or even .h". But that's just
my initial reaction, where I would *start* the review. Making that
judgment is not trivial for me because I know the unexec code is very
special, and because it likely implies a lot of extra work for
somebody, preferably you. Since you keep emphasizing how lazy you
are, *I* hesitate to ask. :-) Jerry can probably answer a lot more
quickly and authoritatively, but he's not posting at the moment.
Thank you for elaborating on your thoughts.
The above was in no way obvious to me; especially since the .c file
already has special cases for other operating systems (FreeBSD, for
This is the closest you have been to answering the question I was trying
Since you don't want to do it yourself, I have reposted your
with a ChangeLog to XEmacs Patches.
And with this, my communication has failed totally and utterly.
I shall refrain from trying any more - apparantly I am simply unable to
communicate clearly in this context.
"I myself have spent many an enjoyable hour in my Adam Sjøgren
spare time not collecting stamps." asjo(a)koldfront.dk
XEmacs-Beta mailing list