From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: MS-Windows build broken in Fmake_network_process Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 20:27:31 +0300 Message-ID: <83sk7gxuyk.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83634jglab.fsf@gnu.org> <831vf7ge57.fsf@gnu.org> <83y6hfeyzw.fsf@gnu.org> <83vdcig87f.fsf@gnu.org> <87k4sywpvv.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <83tys2fbxs.fsf@gnu.org> <87hbo1iubm.fsf@home.jasonrumney.net> <83ljddg0w9.fsf@gnu.org> <4BAE867D.3030404@gmail.com> <4BAE9ED4.6070900@t-online.de> <87tys12sdy.fsf@telefonica.net> <87y6h9rsuc.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <83bpe4zy13.fsf@gnu.org> <87ljd8se7y.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <83wrwsxyg6.fsf@gnu.org> <87d3yks9z3.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1270056466 11978 80.91.229.12 (31 Mar 2010 17:27:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:27:46 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 31 19:27:43 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nx1hY-0000Gp-98 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:27:36 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54164 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nx1hW-0007yG-W0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:27:35 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Nx1hQ-0007vF-E3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:27:28 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=50534 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nx1hP-0007u2-2q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:27:28 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nx1hN-0004Ww-U0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:27:26 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il ([80.179.55.169]:36859) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nx1hN-0004Wf-MU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:27:25 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L0500100POQ7Y00@a-mtaout21.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 20:27:23 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.176.135]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L0500LJLPTL5890@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 20:27:23 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <87d3yks9z3.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:122986 Archived-At: > From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 01:59:44 +0900 > > There are a lot more developers who are relatively > familiar with X Windows, and most POSIX-based developers will be > familiar with X. I doubt that. At least my personal experience is different: I know almost nothing about X, but have no problem hacking the non-X parts of Emacs, even where they are Posix specific. It's no accident that the first build of Emacs that supported bidi was a GNU/Linux TTY build. > They would like to be refactoring code, but they can't do that if it > crosses an #ifdef MSWINDOWS (or whatever the #define is) unless > they're willing to take a hack at implementing the Windows version. Refactoring of Windows code is done by the maintainers of the Windows port. Most of the other maintainers should probably use hideif or some such to remove the Windows code from sight. > It was precisely such an exercise that triggered this thread (or > maybe it's a similar thread). No, this thread was triggered by an attempt to ignore Windows-specific aspects of networking and signals, not by some #ifdef'ed code.