Re: [simon.marshall@misys.com: Font Lock on-the-fly misfontification in C++]

[Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net>]

 Ar an dara lá de mí Lúnasa, scríobh David Kastrup: 

 > And we use the term "Emacs" for referring to Emacs.

 > When the term "GNU Emacs" is used, it is to draw attention to the GNU
 > project and the part Emacs plays within it, not to insinuate that the
 > scope of Emacs is supposed to be restricted to within GNU.

No-one uses “GNU Emacs” to insinuate that the editor is supposed to be
restricted to within the GNU project. What gave you that impression? 

 > Contrasting "XEmacs" and "GNU Emacs" is therefore misleading.  The
 > proper names of the editors are "Emacs" and "XEmacs". 

Then GNU Emacs should call itself just “Emacs” on its startup screen, as
XEmacs calls itself “XEmacs” on its startup screen.  

 > "GNU Emacs" is a distinction, but not one differentiating Emacs and
 > XEmacs.

I disagree. 

 > [...] I don't think it too onerous to expect that XEmacs developers call
 > Emacs "Emacs". 

Active developers call your branch of the editor GNU Emacs! It is
hypocritical at best to object when others do likewise. 

 > The stance that "Emacs" is supposed to mean "Emacs and
 > XEmacs" and only "GNU Emacs" is supposed to carry the meaning "Emacs" is
 > not really helpful, not even to XEmacs users.

XEmacs still supports (emacs-version); lots of our documentation uses
“emacs” to refer to any version of the editor, something the GNU branch
rarely does (that is, it rarely admits that the documentation may be
applicable to other branches.). I personally would prefer to do this less; I
changed the title bar to say “XEmacs” rather than “emacs” partly because of
that. 

-- 
Santa Maradona, priez pour moi!