doc-view.el and emacs 21

doc-view.el and emacs 21

[Martin Rubey]

Dear Tassilo, *,

since doc-view does searching now, too, and is supposed to be fast, I wanted to
try it again, but alas, my emacs21 is complaining about

    process-put

and

   process-get

Any cure?

Martin

Re: doc-view.el and emacs 21

[Tassilo Horn]

Martin Rubey <axiomize@yahoo.de> writes:

Hi Martin,

> since doc-view does searching now, too, and is supposed to be fast, I
> wanted to try it again, but alas, my emacs21 is complaining about
>
>     process-put
>     process-get
>
> Any cure?

No, sorry.  It seems that those functions are new in emacs22, but
they're essential in doc-view.el.

Sorry for that,
Tassilo
-- 
No person,  no idea, and no  religion deserves to be  illegal to insult,
not even the Church of Emacs. (Richard M. Stallman)

Re: doc-view.el and emacs 21

[Daniel Jensen]

Tassilo Horn <tassilo@member.fsf.org> writes:

> Martin Rubey <axiomize@yahoo.de> writes:
>
> Hi Martin,
>
>> since doc-view does searching now, too, and is supposed to be fast, I
>> wanted to try it again, but alas, my emacs21 is complaining about
>>
>>     process-put
>>     process-get
>>
>> Any cure?
>
> No, sorry.  It seems that those functions are new in emacs22, but
> they're essential in doc-view.el.

I haven't had a close look at doc-view.el, but I doubt it would be
impossible to work something out for Emacs 21. I could look into this
later today, but I'll have to get acquainted with the program first.

Re: doc-view.el and emacs 21

[David Kastrup]

daniel@bigwalter.net (Daniel Jensen) writes:

> Tassilo Horn <tassilo@member.fsf.org> writes:
>
>> Martin Rubey <axiomize@yahoo.de> writes:
>>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>>> since doc-view does searching now, too, and is supposed to be fast, I
>>> wanted to try it again, but alas, my emacs21 is complaining about
>>>
>>>     process-put
>>>     process-get
>>>
>>> Any cure?
>>
>> No, sorry.  It seems that those functions are new in emacs22, but
>> they're essential in doc-view.el.
>
> I haven't had a close look at doc-view.el, but I doubt it would be
> impossible to work something out for Emacs 21. I could look into
> this later today, but I'll have to get acquainted with the program
> first.

Why bother?  Emacs 22.1 has been released.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: doc-view.el and emacs 21

[Daniel Jensen]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> daniel@bigwalter.net (Daniel Jensen) writes:
>
>> I haven't had a close look at doc-view.el, but I doubt it would be
>> impossible to work something out for Emacs 21. I could look into
>> this later today, but I'll have to get acquainted with the program
>> first.
>
> Why bother?  Emacs 22.1 has been released.

That is a valid point, but it shouldn't be a bother. (If it is, I don't
think I'll do it anyway.)

Re: doc-view.el and emacs 21

[David Kastrup]

daniel@bigwalter.net (Daniel Jensen) writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> daniel@bigwalter.net (Daniel Jensen) writes:
>>
>>> I haven't had a close look at doc-view.el, but I doubt it would be
>>> impossible to work something out for Emacs 21. I could look into
>>> this later today, but I'll have to get acquainted with the program
>>> first.
>>
>> Why bother?  Emacs 22.1 has been released.
>
> That is a valid point, but it shouldn't be a bother. (If it is, I
> don't think I'll do it anyway.)

Emacs 21 does not support image slicing, either.  And backporting
seems a bit pointless: if people are willing to install new software
anyway, they'd be much better served installing Emacs 22 for so many
reasons.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: doc-view.el and emacs 21

[Daniel Jensen]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> daniel@bigwalter.net (Daniel Jensen) writes:
>
>> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> daniel@bigwalter.net (Daniel Jensen) writes:
>>>
>>>> I haven't had a close look at doc-view.el, but I doubt it would be
>>>> impossible to work something out for Emacs 21. I could look into
>>>> this later today, but I'll have to get acquainted with the program
>>>> first.
>>>
>>> Why bother?  Emacs 22.1 has been released.
>>
>> That is a valid point, but it shouldn't be a bother. (If it is, I
>> don't think I'll do it anyway.)
>
> Emacs 21 does not support image slicing, either.  And backporting
> seems a bit pointless: if people are willing to install new software
> anyway, they'd be much better served installing Emacs 22 for so many
> reasons.

Yeah, you're right. It quite feasible to get it to run with Emacs 21,
but it won't work satisfactory.

Re: doc-view.el and emacs 21

[Xavier Maillard]

Hi,

       process-put

   and

      process-get

   Any cure?

I think this is only from GNU Emacs 22.x. Just in case it could
work, here are the definitions (from subr.el)

;; process plist management

(defun process-get (process propname)
  "Return the value of PROCESS' PROPNAME property.
This is the last value stored with `(process-put PROCESS PROPNAME VALUE)'."
  (plist-get (process-plist process) propname))

(defun process-put (process propname value)
  "Change PROCESS' PROPNAME property to VALUE.
It can be retrieved with `(process-get PROCESS PROPNAME)'."
  (set-process-plist process
		     (plist-put (process-plist process) propname value)))

I hope this can help.


	Xavier
-- 
http://www.gnu.org
http://www.april.org
http://www.lolica.org

Re: doc-view.el and emacs 21

[Martin Rubey]

Xavier Maillard <xma@gnu.org> writes:

>        process-put
> 
>    and
> 
>       process-get
> 
>    Any cure?
> 
> I think this is only from GNU Emacs 22.x. Just in case it could work, here
> are the definitions (from subr.el)

[...]

> I hope this can help.

Unfortunately, now it complains about set-process-plist.  process-plist is also
unknown...  But, alas, neither of them is defined in subr.el.

Thanks anyway.

Martin

Re: doc-view.el and emacs 21

[Tassilo Horn]

Martin Rubey <axiomize@yahoo.de> writes:

Hi Martin,

> Unfortunately, now it complains about set-process-plist.
> process-plist is also unknown...  But, alas, neither of them is
> defined in subr.el.

Both are defined in the C source code, so you cannot simply add them in
your ~/.emacs.

Bye,
Tassilo
-- 
Fighting patents one by one  will never eliminate the danger of software
patents,  any  more than  swatting  mosquitoes  will eliminate  malaria.
(Richard M. Stallman)

Re: doc-view.el and emacs 21

[Xavier Maillard]

   Martin Rubey <axiomize@yahoo.de> writes:

   Hi Martin,

   > Unfortunately, now it complains about set-process-plist.
   > process-plist is also unknown...  But, alas, neither of them is
   > defined in subr.el.

   Both are defined in the C source code, so you cannot simply add them in
   your ~/.emacs.

So there is no other easy solution than dropping your emacs21
version to the latest stable.

Tassilo, why not signal an error when GNU Emacs version is not at
least 22.x ? The error message would say why it is erroring.

	Xavier
-- 
http://www.gnu.org
http://www.april.org
http://www.lolica.org

Re: doc-view.el and emacs 21

[Tassilo Horn]

Xavier Maillard <xma@gnu.org> writes:

Hi Xavier,

>    Both are defined in the C source code, so you cannot simply add them in
>    your ~/.emacs.
>
> So there is no other easy solution than dropping your emacs21 version
> to the latest stable.
>
> Tassilo, why not signal an error when GNU Emacs version is not at
> least 22.x ? The error message would say why it is erroring.

I'll do that.

Bye,
Tassilo
-- 
When Chuck  Norris goes  to donate blood,  he declines the  syringe, and
instead requests a hand gun and a bucket.

Re: doc-view.el and emacs 21

[Xavier Maillard]

   >    Any cure?
   > 
   > I think this is only from GNU Emacs 22.x. Just in case it could work, here
   > are the definitions (from subr.el)

   [...]

   > I hope this can help.

   Unfortunately, now it complains about set-process-plist.  process-plist is also
   unknown...  But, alas, neither of them is defined in subr.el.

Sorry for that :/ You have then two choices:

1. get subr.el from GNU Emacs 22.x
2. use GNU Emacs 22.x

The latter would be easier in my opinion and you'd benefit the
latest features implemented. The former would be ok too (I guess)
but you may face new problems (dependancies, etc.).

Regards,

	Xavier
-- 
http://www.gnu.org
http://www.april.org
http://www.lolica.org