From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/24438 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jan Vroonhof Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: off topic alert: XEmacs vs Emacs? Date: 21 Jul 1999 14:10:27 +0200 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035162003 8701 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 01:00:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 01:00:03 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from farabi.math.uh.edu (farabi.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.57]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA10578 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 08:11:07 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by farabi.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAB28600; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 07:10:54 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Wed, 21 Jul 1999 07:11:46 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (root@sclp3.sclp.com [204.252.123.139]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA15852 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 07:11:36 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from frege.math.ethz.ch (daemon@frege-d-math-north-g-west.math.ethz.ch [129.132.145.3]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA10569 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 08:10:31 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: (from daemon@localhost) by frege.math.ethz.ch (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA01981 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 14:10:30 +0200 (MET DST) Original-Received: from bolzano(129.132.146.140) via SMTP by frege, id smtpdAAAa000Ur; Wed Jul 21 14:10:28 1999 Original-Received: (vroonhof@localhost) by bolzano (SMI-8.6/D-MATH-client) id OAA18676; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 14:10:28 +0200 Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: Kai Gro?johann's message of "Tue, 20 Jul 1999 21:37:20 GMT" Original-Lines: 78 User-Agent: Gnus/5.070083 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.83) XEmacs/21.1 (Acadia) Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:24438 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:24438 Kai Großjohann writes: > On the other hand, I see that XEmacs behaves in, err, /unexpected/ > ways. Two anecdotical examples: loading del-bs.el (or similar) does > what one expect, *except* in Lisp Interaction mode. In 21.1.x delbs.el consists of the following === (provide 'delbs) (message "Use the variable `delete-key-deletes-forward' instead of delbs") (sit-for 5) === delete-key-deletes-forward works in lisp-interaction-mode of course. > Hm. rcp.el doesn't work together with EFS because EFS expects to be > the only remote-file handling package used (well, the only one which > uses file names beginning with "/foo:"). The same holds for ange-ftp isn't it? It is just that you a. haven't implemented all the file-handler method's XEmacs use. b. can control the loading ange-ftp a bit better. Why don't you simply use a syntax that _is_ unique? /rsh|.. comes to mind. Yes the remote file name syntax could have been designed better to allow for extension to other protocols, but that is historical baggage and hardly XEmacs's fault. > I get a vague feeling that the many packages included with XEmacs > might not be so well thought-out and thoroughly-tested. May be. In fact I am sure that are some packages that are under tested. However my (biased) opinion is that those two particular examples you mentioned EFS and the BS/DEL are solved _better_ under XEmacs. On the other hand, we just got a bug report that info.el doesn't defvar it's hooks. That is also true for the FSF version. That is an 8 year old bug! > Yet, I'm sure that I would do injustice to XEmacs if I were to say > it is less stable or less well tested. Indeed :-). > Thoughts? I am afraid you (in the rsh.el case) are simply being hit by one of those annoying elisp compatibilities, made worse by an unfortunate choice of syntax for your remote files. In fact if you were developing under XEmacs yourself you would probably complain too but the other way round: Why doesn't FSF Emacs 1. Come with AucTeX 2. Have add-minor-mode, define-error 3. Preserve author version history when elisp has been bundled. 4. Dump cl'el. etc etc. To name a few points where IMNSHO XEmacs is clearly better elisp wise. I can also name a few points where FSF is clearly better. But is doesn't matter. The fact is that there are two major Emacsen and that has apart from benefits also problems. The good thing is that on a lot of fronts cooperation has been good recently: easy-menu synchronisation is a good example, my new custom themes stuff has a good chance of being synced up in both versions etc. Which is good, most of the incompatibilities are completely unnecessary, and can be prevented with a bit of coordination. Jan