[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: position on changing defaults?
From: |
Stephen J. Turnbull |
Subject: |
Re: position on changing defaults? |
Date: |
Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:56:35 +0900 |
David Kastrup writes:
> How do you expect us to come up with an incompatible implementation
> without volunteering more details?
Well, the only detail I know off hand is that the variable controlling
the behavior is `shifted-motion-keys-select-region' and that it
defaults to t.
My only point here was to admit that 3rd party developers should not
hope that XEmacs's decade-old working implementation will soon be made
conformable to GNU's not-yet-decided one.
I see no point in going into detail, especially as that would cost me
some hours studying code I have never touched.
- Re: position on changing defaults?, (continued)
- Re: position on changing defaults?, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2008/03/12
- Re: position on changing defaults?, Stefan Monnier, 2008/03/12
- Re: position on changing defaults?, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2008/03/13
- Re: position on changing defaults?, Richard Stallman, 2008/03/13
- Re: position on changing defaults?, David Kastrup, 2008/03/14
- Re: position on changing defaults?, David Kastrup, 2008/03/13
- Re: position on changing defaults?, Kim F. Storm, 2008/03/13
- Re: position on changing defaults?, David Kastrup, 2008/03/13
- Re: position on changing defaults?, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/03/13
- Re: position on changing defaults?, David Kastrup, 2008/03/13
- Re: position on changing defaults?,
Stephen J. Turnbull <=
- Re: position on changing defaults?, Richard Stallman, 2008/03/13
- Re: position on changing defaults?, Kim F. Storm, 2008/03/13
- Re: position on changing defaults?, David Kastrup, 2008/03/13
- Re: position on changing defaults?, Richard Stallman, 2008/03/14
- Re: position on changing defaults?, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2008/03/13
- Re: position on changing defaults?, Chong Yidong, 2008/03/13