From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: MS-Windows build broken in Fmake_network_process Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 00:28:01 +0900 Message-ID: <87ljd8se7y.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <83634jglab.fsf@gnu.org> <831vf7ge57.fsf@gnu.org> <83y6hfeyzw.fsf@gnu.org> <83vdcig87f.fsf@gnu.org> <87k4sywpvv.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <83tys2fbxs.fsf@gnu.org> <87hbo1iubm.fsf@home.jasonrumney.net> <83ljddg0w9.fsf@gnu.org> <4BAE867D.3030404@gmail.com> <4BAE9ED4.6070900@t-online.de> <87tys12sdy.fsf@telefonica.net> <87y6h9rsuc.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <83bpe4zy13.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1270049933 18434 80.91.229.12 (31 Mar 2010 15:38:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:38:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 31 17:38:47 2010 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nx00E-0001Si-G3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:38:46 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54040 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nx00D-0000Io-V6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:38:46 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Nwzpx-0001m6-Ld for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:28:09 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=49831 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nwzps-0001ad-6e for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:28:09 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nwzpo-00041I-Uq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:28:04 -0400 Original-Received: from mtps01.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.223]:44242) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nwzpk-000400-Uu; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:27:57 -0400 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mtps01.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCF341535AE; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 00:27:53 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A2F891A38CA; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 00:28:01 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <83bpe4zy13.fsf@gnu.org> X-Mailer: VM 8.0.12-devo-585 under 21.5 (beta29) "garbanzo" a03421eb562b XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:122977 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > > From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" > > Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:57:31 +0900 > > Cc: =D3scar Fuentes , emacs-devel@gnu.org > >=20 > > Richard Stallman writes: > >=20 > > > However, it is not a high priority for us, because supporting any > > > version of Windows is not a high priority for us. We have no > > > commitment to support Windows 9, or Windows 7, or any version of > > > Windows. People work on this if they want to do it, and they can > > > choose which platforms to support. > >=20 > > The point is that some developers find the very need to make the > > choice (eg, having to parse #ifdefs that refer to Windows-related > > code) annoying >=20 > I fail to see how these #ifdefs should be more annoying than similar > ones for Posix systems. Nobody said that they were more annoying than other #ifdefs, only that they are more annoying than no #ifdefs. Haven't you recently removed quite a few #ifdefs and #defines in the process of pruning away code for supporting extinct *nix systems? I know we have. > And the issue in this thread was not about dropping Windows support > altogether, only about supporting older Windows systems, which > contribute no #ifdefs whatsoever. Whatever. Eli, one of the reasons I work on XEmacs, not SXEmacs, is that SXEmacs made the choice to remove *all* Windows support. It's a decision I disagree with, personally. But I acknowledge their motivation, and I think you and Richard are making a mistake by ignoring the costs those #ifdefs and maintenance of the Windows code do impose on non-Windows developers, and saying that it's only an issue of whether Windows developers want to support it or not.