From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stefan Monnier" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: C-l while in menu? Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:52:09 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <3CC68F57.4060901@666.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1019652886 11137 127.0.0.1 (24 Apr 2002 12:54:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:54:46 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Simon Josefsson , "Kim F. Storm" , Miles Bader , Pavel =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan=EDk?= , Stefan Monnier , Richard Stallman , 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 170MIH-0002tW-00 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:54:45 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 170MJx-0002Nf-00 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:56:30 +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 170MIB-00042m-00; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:54:39 -0400 Original-Received: from rum.cs.yale.edu ([128.36.229.169]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 170MG4-0003Tu-00; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:52:28 -0400 Original-Received: (from monnier@localhost) by rum.cs.yale.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g3OCq9I16370; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:52:09 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 Original-To: Ben Wing 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:3179 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:3179 > 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. I have XEmacs installed here (I usually also have the CVS checked out, although not right now because it was victim of a "disk full emergency" a couple weeks back). I suspect I'm not the only one. > 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). Agreed here, Stefan