From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jay Belanger Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Is it planned to remove xemacs compatibility code? Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:14:39 -0500 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <87d5z5wau8.fsf@vh213602.truman.edu> References: Reply-To: belanger@truman.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1098818125 4741 80.91.229.6 (26 Oct 2004 19:15:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:15:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: belanger@truman.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 26 21:15:07 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CMWmg-0003OT-00 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:15:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CMWuO-0002Rj-OG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:23:04 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CMWuH-0002Rb-Hh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:22:57 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CMWuG-0002RO-VL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:22:57 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CMWuG-0002RL-SZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:22:56 -0400 Original-Received: from [150.243.160.94] (helo=uranium.truman.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CMWmI-0001mi-Nw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:14:42 -0400 Original-Received: from gold.truman.edu ([150.243.160.250]) by uranium.truman.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i9QJEh6T008208; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:14:43 -0500 (envelope-from belanger@truman.edu) Original-Received: from vh213602.truman.edu.truman.edu (vh213602.truman.edu [150.243.160.239]) by gold.truman.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6D766E4109; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:14:39 -0500 (CDT) Original-To: Stefan Monnier In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:24:23 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) 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: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:28991 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:28991 Stefan Monnier writes: >> Around Emacs code, I find many Xemacs compatibility code as >> (cond ((featurep 'xemacs) blah ...) >> (if (featurep 'xemacs) blah ...) > > Those files are typically also distributed separately from Emacs for older > Emacsen or for XEmacs, so it is better to keep this code so as to minimize > the difference between the version bundled with Emacs and the other version: > any difference tends to lead to problems keeping the files in sync. What about the files that aren't distributed separately? Also, the manuals of some bundled packages have installation instructions; should these be kept? Jay