XEmacs has no [remap].
Subject line says it all. I learned about that only today accidentally from this mail on emacs-devel: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/127667> Vimpulse uses remapping at a few places so I thought I'd mention that, as AFAIK Vegard tries to keep things XEmacs-compatible (and has my full moral support ;-D). I'm not suggesting we do anything about that, at least until some complaints occur. (:rant It's so sad, really -- I'd love to be using XEmacs (see the recent copyright thread on this list), but it seems to only work reasonably well out-of-the-box in the terminal for me. I'm sure you can get it working in GUI, too, but my hostility towards the FSF probably just isn't big enough yet. :-|) Štěpán
On 2010-07-23 15:18, Štěpán Němec wrote:
Vimpulse uses remapping at a few places so I thought I'd mention that, as AFAIK Vegard tries to keep things XEmacs-compatible (and has my full moral support ;-D).
Yeah, I'm aware that XEmacs lacks remapping. The `vimpulse-remap' macro tries to make do by storing remappings in an association list, whence they can be retrieved by a specific function like `vimpulse-operator-remapping'. There is no general solution.
I'd love to be using XEmacs (see the recent copyright thread on this list), but it seems to only work reasonably well out-of-the-box in the terminal for me.
Are there any technical advantages to using XEmacs nowadays? -- Vegard
Vegard Øye <[email protected]> writes:
On 2010-07-23 15:18, Štěpán Němec wrote:
Vimpulse uses remapping at a few places so I thought I'd mention that, as AFAIK Vegard tries to keep things XEmacs-compatible (and has my full moral support ;-D).
Yeah, I'm aware that XEmacs lacks remapping. The `vimpulse-remap' macro tries to make do by storing remappings in an association list, whence they can be retrieved by a specific function like `vimpulse-operator-remapping'. There is no general solution.
Yeah, what I meant was vimpulse-compatibility.el lines 23nn.
I'd love to be using XEmacs (see the recent copyright thread on this list), but it seems to only work reasonably well out-of-the-box in the terminal for me.
Are there any technical advantages to using XEmacs nowadays?
No idea. GNU Emacs' redisplay seems to be getting annoyingly slow (i.e. with heavy or even not-so-heavy font-locking, scrolling is sometimes rather painful, and it's probably only going to get worse with bidi), but given that I haven't been able to test GUI XEmacs lately, I have no idea if it's better. The incentive for me would be the "free as in freedom, not as in Free Software Foundation" ;-). Stephen J. Turnbull sums a few issues up nicely in this mail: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.xemacs.beta/33144> Štěpán
Vegard Øye <[email protected]> writes:
On 2010-07-23 16:38, Štěpán Němec wrote:
Yeah, what I meant was vimpulse-compatibility.el lines 23nn.
Those lines are concerned with undo-tree.el, which doesn't support XEmacs. (Vimpulse uses redo.el as a fall-back when undo-tree.el isn't available.)
Oh, I didn't know undo-tree didn't work with XEmacs. :-| Sorry for the noise then. Štěpán
participants (2)
-
Vegard Øye -
Štěpán Němec