[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Rationale for split-string?
From: |
Luc Teirlinck |
Subject: |
Re: Rationale for split-string? |
Date: |
Tue, 22 Apr 2003 08:51:11 -0500 (CDT) |
Stephen Turnbull wrote:
GNU Emacs made the change (viz. cvs diff -r EMACS_20_2 -r EMACS_20_4
subr.el) without worrying sufficiently about breaking existing code
(see Stefan Reichör's post here <address@hidden>, or run
XEmacs's regression test suite on XEmacs 21.5). I don't see why that
should be a barrier to reverting to the old, regular, behavior now.
I did not know the history of the function. I did not subscribe to
this site four years ago. If I did I would probably have opposed the
original change back then, which might not have made any difference
anyway. I am not part of some "Conspiracy" started four years ago as
others seem to suggest. Anyway, I hope this answers the question of
"And where were you four years ago?" which others asked me. I did not
subscribe to emacs devel back then.
Sincerely,
Luc.
- Re: Rationale for split-string?, (continued)
- Re: Rationale for split-string?, Luc Teirlinck, 2003/04/21
- Re: Rationale for split-string?, Jerry James, 2003/04/22
- Re: Rationale for split-string?, Eli Zaretskii, 2003/04/22
- Re: Rationale for split-string?, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/04/22
- Re: Rationale for split-string?, Jerry James, 2003/04/22
- Re: Rationale for split-string?, Luc Teirlinck, 2003/04/22
- Re: Rationale for split-string?, Jerry James, 2003/04/22
- Re: Rationale for split-string?, Luc Teirlinck, 2003/04/22
- Re: Rationale for split-string?, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/04/22
- Re: Rationale for split-string?, Miles Bader, 2003/04/22
- Re: Rationale for split-string?,
Luc Teirlinck <=
- Re: Rationale for split-string?, Luc Teirlinck, 2003/04/22
- Re: Rationale for split-string?, Richard Stallman, 2003/04/22
- Re: Rationale for split-string?, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/04/23
- Re: Rationale for split-string?, Richard Stallman, 2003/04/24