From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Eli Zaretskii" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: C-l while in menu? Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 18:43:42 +0300 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <4331-Wed24Apr2002184342+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> References: <3CC68F57.4060901@666.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1019663135 1034 127.0.0.1 (24 Apr 2002 15:45:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:45:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: gerd@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, xemacs-design@xemacs.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 170Oxb-0000GZ-00 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:45:35 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 170OzL-0006Kl-00 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:47:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 170OxT-00022m-00; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:45:27 -0400 Original-Received: from odin.inter.net.il ([192.114.186.10]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 170Owe-0001x8-00; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:44:36 -0400 Original-Received: from Zaretsky ([80.230.2.40]) by odin.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.1.0.54-GA) with ESMTP id ABY16346; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 18:43:48 +0300 (IDT) Original-To: ben@666.com X-Mailer: emacs 21.2.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9 In-Reply-To: <3CC68F57.4060901@666.com> (message from Ben Wing on Wed, 24 Apr 2002 03:56:23 -0700) Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:3185 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:3185 > Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 03:56:23 -0700 > From: Ben Wing > > In an earlier message, which was ignored, I suggested that you guys > actually run XEmacs to see how it works. I'm not sure why there's so > much resistance to doing this -- I can't really see how this would > infringe on RMS's directive not to look directly at XEmacs code. Ben, please don't assume that your messages are ignored just because no one replied. I, for one, am reading each of your messages very carefully and take anything you say into consideration. We are all busy people, so acking each message to which we agree is not something we can afford. At least I can't; I don't want to speak for others, but I suspect many have to cope with a similar lack of time. I also don't think there's any resistance to run XEmacs. Stefan already told you that he does, and so do I. No doubt there are others. > I really want to see greater compatibility between GNU Emacs and XEmacs. > But that can't happen unless each side explores on its own what the > other side has Sure. But it's also reasonable to ask the expert(s) instead, as an expert could provide a more accurate information faster. For example, if someone--on any of the two teams--is interested in the details of somee code I wrote, I wouldn't mind if they asked me. > I would like to see general agreement that we will try to work more > closely in keeping new interfaces compatible whenever possible. Every > new interface that's incompatible moves us farther away from the > ultimate goal of unifying the interfaces, which I think most of us agree > on (I certainly do). I agree completely.