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: (featurep 'multi-tty) => t on Windows Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:39:10 +0100 Message-ID: References: <610112.22856.qm@web83202.mail.mud.yahoo.com> 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 1229039041 27832 80.91.229.12 (11 Dec 2008 23:44:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:44:01 +0000 (UTC) Cc: cyd@stupidchicken.com, pandyacus@sbcglobal.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Eli Zaretskii" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 12 00:45:05 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 1LAvDL-0006ZE-MU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:45:04 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33965 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LAvCA-00085J-Dj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:43:50 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LAv7l-0005ol-Lm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:39:17 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LAv7k-0005o0-5h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:39:17 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=48173 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LAv7j-0005nq-RM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:39:15 -0500 Original-Received: from yw-out-1718.google.com ([74.125.46.152]:31513) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LAv7h-0004UD-GH; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:39:13 -0500 Original-Received: by yw-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 9so592891ywk.66 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:39:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; 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=s8gURfiiop8ACQaDtZEm5hPBaepElJjKao7bcARZJi8=; b=RhB1SLtjDrrUnbTjucwHyY1Qm/r8eyi7KXx1fIkDRQ4x0l3s4LwkPVin6Ix/QRomvc fUlnM5wKWjiKoXKrTh2cQRUsk6J9Ap4K0UoaINVIsl8W+4bNO2d2e+O8f7zBcCbnlvSp cRix4lq1Uz4Dpdq/9gIIC5hUqaWwp8B2hAM+0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=eE+3SYk8KIPsaNIT5x48eQh0Zfju8BejdLsSz1RhB5aj/n5silhG99fO/fKMcwnpKZ tL8uGq0YWzcK1iuebFSqPeJZSvAv8/0xKqGdXg0UvUSwjHnIaow7qlC1kAYs2lWKyVQT PxODPECpIIt6RQ8LZA/8av8pX31yW6Afq6E0g= Original-Received: by 10.100.44.4 with SMTP id r4mr2485198anr.100.1229038750382; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:39:10 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.100.13.13 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:39:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/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:106824 Archived-At: On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 00:24, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Not unless you show me a use case where multi-tty features don't work > in the MS-DOS port of Emacs. I have yet to see any Lisp code that > wouldn't DTRT in the DOS port because of this. There's currently no Lisp code that does the wrong thing on the Windows port either, if not for other reason that the multi-tty port is quite new. The point is, IMHO, that (featurep 'multi-tty) will allow the code to have some expectations, like the possibility of having simultaneous tty and GUI frames, that currently the Windows port can not satisfy. If the Windows port defines the multi-tty feature, it just dilutes its meaning. Is that not true for the DOS port? Juanma