From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jerry James Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.xemacs.design,gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Rationale for split-string? Date: 22 Apr 2003 09:56:53 -0500 Sender: xemacs-design-admin@xemacs.org Message-ID: References: <87brz57at2.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <200304171744.h3HHiJCx009215@rum.cs.yale.edu> <87adem27ey.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87ist8yv4n.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <200304212111.h3LLBLK11879@eel.dms.auburn.edu> <20030421234347.GA12507@gnu.org> <200304220326.h3M3Q1912252@eel.dms.auburn.edu> <200304221256.h3MCuQQ12476@eel.dms.auburn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1051023444 11369 80.91.224.249 (22 Apr 2003 14:57:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 14:57:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, xemacs-design@xemacs.org Original-X-From: xemacs-design-admin@xemacs.org Tue Apr 22 16:57:22 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from gwyn.tux.org ([199.184.165.135]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 197zCz-0002x6-00 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:57:21 +0200 Original-Received: from gwyn.tux.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gwyn.tux.org (8.11.6p2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id h3MEw2M04857; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:58:02 -0400 Original-Received: (from turnbull@localhost) by gwyn.tux.org (8.11.6p2/8.9.1) id h3MEv3C04478 for xemacs-design-mailman@xemacs.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:57:03 -0400 Original-Received: (from mail@localhost) by gwyn.tux.org (8.11.6p2/8.9.1) id h3MEv3U04465 for turnbull@tux.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:57:03 -0400 Original-Received: from stephens.ittc.ku.edu (stephens.ittc.ku.edu [129.237.125.220]) by gwyn.tux.org (8.11.6p2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id h3MEv2M04461 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:57:03 -0400 Original-Received: from diannao.ittc.ku.edu (diannao.ittc.ku.edu [129.237.126.112]) by stephens.ittc.ku.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/ITTC-ANTISPAM-ANTIVIRUS-3.0) with ESMTP id h3MEurMR028545; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 09:56:53 -0500 Original-Received: by diannao.ittc.ku.edu (8.11.6/KU-4.0-client) id h3MEurm12129; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 09:56:53 -0500 Original-To: Luc Teirlinck In-Reply-To: <200304221256.h3MCuQQ12476@eel.dms.auburn.edu> Original-Lines: 41 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) X-VirusScan: Clean X-XEmacs-List: design Errors-To: xemacs-design-admin@xemacs.org X-BeenThere: xemacs-design@xemacs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of design and features for XEmacs. List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.xemacs.design:2104 gmane.emacs.devel:13359 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:13359 Luc Teirlinck wrote: > I am not going to respond to the essence of your statement, since it > does not have any. (It is just emotional stuff, it has no rational > content.) I just want to point out that I am not an official > spokesperson for Emacs. I represent my own opinions, not those of > Emacs or "the Emacs developers". Any "Evil Intents" you seem to be > attributing to Emacs and the Emacs developers are strictly and > completely my own personal Evilness. You have to realize that I'm an academic, Luc. I asked the questions I asked, not to accuse or belittle anybody, but as an exercise in the Socratic method (perhaps a poor one, but that's another discussion). If you reread my last message with that in mind, I think you will see that the case is the opposite of what you assumed: it is all rational content; none of it is emotional. Let me summarize the main points I wanted to make: 1) Some of the resistance to changing Emacs' split-string function is coming from people who are worried about breaking existing code. 2) XEmacs has not changed the split-string function (except in the development version, which is where we noticed the test breakage that prompted all this). 3) Emacs changed the split-string function, somewhere after version 20.1 was released, and before 20.4 was released. 4) If no code broke at the time, then we have nothing to worry about, because no code at all notices the difference. 5) If some code broke, then knowing which code it is that broke is relevant to this discussion; hence the question about the existence of emacs-devel archives. The thought of anyone having any kind of evil intent never crossed my mind. Regards, -- Jerry James http://www.ittc.ku.edu/~james/