From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs vista build failures Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:34:58 +0200 Message-ID: <86iquygf71.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> References: <36366a980807101702r5677d096g8e62ef5b3e278868@mail.gmail.com> <20080714195651.GF3445@muc.de> <487C5FA3.4070603@emf.net> <87zloggji9.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <878wvxxkn6.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87ej5oz4pb.fsf@saeurebad.de> <87vdyzxype.fsf@saeurebad.de> <871w1njq32.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87iquzxgtk.fsf@saeurebad.de> <4884CFEF.8040404@gmail.com> <87ej5nxew2.fsf@saeurebad.de> <85y73u96jl.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <86r69mgig9.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1216737327 20419 80.91.229.12 (22 Jul 2008 14:35:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:35:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: hannes@saeurebad.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jul 22 16:36:15 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KLIyD-0005dl-K2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:36:05 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42486 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KLIxK-0006cW-6k for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:35:10 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KLIxF-0006cM-J9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:35:05 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KLIxE-0006c6-EY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:35:05 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55299 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KLIxE-0006c3-6D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:35:04 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.quinscape.de ([212.29.44.217]:53098) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KLIxD-0003oC-LH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:35:03 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail-ldap/ctrl 2278 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2008 14:34:59 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO lola.quinscape.zz) ([10.0.3.43]) (envelope-sender ) by quinx.quinscape.de (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 22 Jul 2008 14:34:58 -0000 Original-Received: by lola.quinscape.zz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id F41078EEEF; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:34:58 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:57:58 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-AntiVirus: checked by AntiVir MailGate (version: 2.1.3-2; AVE: 7.8.1.11; VDF: 7.0.5.151; host: quinx) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:101203 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: David Kastrup >> Cc: hannes@saeurebad.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:24:38 +0200 >> >> Yes, since COMMAND.COM and CMD.EXE behave quite differently, and also >> differently on different versions of Windows. > > And zsh behaves differently from Bash which behaves differently from > the Borne shell. Not in the basic Bourne shell features. There _are_ buggy Bourne shells around. But they still don't show that sort of variety that Microsoft manages in its own product line. >> So tell me: How to you quote the word (written as Lisp string) >> "\"goof\" " to the typical Windows shell? > > See the Emacs makefiles for Windows. They don't quote such words. So care to enlighted me? >> When looking at design and implementation of first DOS and later >> Windows, I often had the feeling "this is so stupid and braindead >> that I can hardly believe it". With UNIX, the feeling was more often >> "I wish I would have thought of that". > > Are you sure you know the design and implementation of DOS and Windows > well enough to say this? I have worked with DOS beginning with version 1.0 when they were still mainly working with FCBs rather than file descriptors, and I have worked with CP/M, and I have worked with UNIX on various processors and OS/2. I have done quite a bit of assembly and system programming in all of those systems (many of that for pay), so I know a lot of the inheritage, memory and system layouts, and I know a lot of the implementations, and what system calls were done with what sort of data structures when what sort of features were implemented imitating features from elsewhere. So yes, I am sure that I know design and implementation of DOS and Windows well enough to say what feelings I have. And actually, I think that I should not require all too much of a qualification to be allowed to state my feelings. -- David Kastrup