11:38 p.m.
PATCH packages
Emacs has had a function named assoc-string for about a decade now.
We have a couple of packages that have workarounds for our lack of the
function. I'm working on a package update that brings in more uses of
it. I figured it was time to stop working around its absence. This
patch provides a Lisp implementation in xemacs-base/subr-more.el. It
is functionally identical to the Emacs version (but not code
identical, since the Emacs version is written in C).
The patch also removes workarounds from the calendar and leim packages.
The patch is attached.
--
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Patches mailing list
XEmacs-Patches(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-patches
2:39 a.m.
Jerry James quotes some unnamed Emacs bagbuilder:
+(defun assoc-string (key list &optional case-fold)
+ "Like `assoc' but specifically for strings (and symbols).
+
+This returns the first element of LIST whose car matches the string or
+symbol KEY, or NIL if no match exists. When performing the comparison,
+symbols are first converted to strings. If the optional arg CASE-FOLD
+is non-nil, case is ignored.
+
+Unlike `assoc', KEY can also match an entry in LIST consisting of a
+single string, rather than a cons cell whose car is a string."
And RMS calls the impossibility of parsing #r"?\" backwards is a wart!
Maintaining compatibility with Emacs is worse than having a
schizophrenic spouse!
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Patches mailing list
XEmacs-Patches(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-patches
9:48 p.m.
>>>> Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Jerry James quotes some unnamed Emacs bagbuilder:
[...]
And RMS calls the impossibility of parsing #r"?\" backwards
is a wart!
Maintaining compatibility with Emacs is worse than having a
schizophrenic spouse!
Sorry Stephen but for a non native speaking person like me (or maybe
just a stupid person like me) the irony(!?) in the quote above simply
doesn't come through cleanly. Is there something wrong with being
compatible with Emacs in this case? Since we have work arounds for
that function it is pretty clear we should have it.
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Patches mailing list
XEmacs-Patches(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-patches
2:46 a.m.
I apologize for the confusion, I was just blowing off steam.
Mats Lidell writes:
Is there something wrong with being compatible with Emacs in this
case?
Only that it makes me sick to look at it. ;-) That's not your
problem, or Jerry's. :-)
Since we have work arounds for that function it is pretty
clear we should have it.
Yes, you are right, and you are right that it is obvious. That's what
makes me so mad! :-)
For future reference, if I meant we shouldn't be Emacs-compatible in
some case, I'd veto the patch explicitly and propose an alternative
approach.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Patches mailing list
XEmacs-Patches(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-patches
9:55 p.m.
>>>> Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
I apologize for the confusion, I was just blowing off steam.
I thought so but got confused. Thanks for clarifying.
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Patches mailing list
XEmacs-Patches(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-patches
3790
days inactive
3792
days old
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Jerry James -
Stephen J. Turnbull -
The XEmacs Package Smoketest