From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Juanma Barranquero" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: isearch multiple buffers Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:32:21 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87odfcggvl.fsf@jurta.org> <87odepv21n.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87ir4wjcev.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <200710261516.l9QFGQ7C001069@oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1193412760 31708 80.91.229.12 (26 Oct 2007 15:32:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:32:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Miles Bader , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Dan Nicolaescu" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 26 17:32:41 2007 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 1IlRAs-0002h7-54 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:32:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IlRAj-0002kp-Mf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:32:29 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IlRAf-0002jJ-SJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:32:25 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IlRAd-0002g5-DZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:32:24 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IlRAd-0002g2-9P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:32:23 -0400 Original-Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.176]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IlRAc-0000r0-Sb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:32:23 -0400 Original-Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id k34so1078968wah for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:32:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=RiXOIrjLO8lHNKJ4IZPV/I1OuL8sSAErCJQ6kXZM7bk=; b=WKwPUHQNA/CSwMg2nZOvCKJDvQybNl+iqXLWZPCiRtlpwMCAT1/7LqS4lEeGq6Xs4fuNW6gT4EU7oDXyPGytH0TInaGN9nAVaS7QthGUCzJe6ZF1bPlWnGJauxBA0jSv9nYykMH+BbQ3gFja7MTKxhug5H3hResZCs6yReZgLpE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=nBCz1DR5blcjdtwi/03LzoRO7iMVxhycJPp0nGbYG2VaO6khY2QgtFBxEGpOkF20vpK/8ySLOdbjj5mDu8CCJocSIFHgqDUHkTe99wK6wgjjSZsIv20bEF3lnYgW0ztCkbYrgQufHYjydlmR+ieznHH3U4GwV8pEAI99T/gOwWI= Original-Received: by 10.114.184.7 with SMTP id h7mr3597928waf.1193412741683; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:32:21 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.115.72.13 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:32:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <200710261516.l9QFGQ7C001069@oogie-boogie.ics.uci.edu> Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:81774 Archived-At: On 10/26/07, Dan Nicolaescu wrote: > So yes, the fact that the DOS code is present has an impact on > everyone that does work on emacs. As long as there are users for that > code this is fine, but there's no evidence that there are such users. I have no opinion on this discussion, but with respect to the point above, it is not inconceivable to think that ports for old architectures could be still in use in less developed countries, where upgrading to the new-and-shiny-processor-do-jour is often impractical... That reason has been given many times to maintain the support for Windows 95/98/Me, and does not seem too far-fetched to extend that to MS-DOS. Juanma