Re: proced.el

[Stefan Monnier]

>> Then someone else could reimplement them in
>> a portable fashion.
>> 
>> I tend to think it is better to leave this unportable code in Lisp
>> than to move it to C, because I think the amount of unportable
>> code in C would be much much more.

> Now I have a challenge in hand to prove that you are wrong.

Obviously I can't decide what you work on, but let's not forget that we
lived happily without proced at all (not even some simpler replacement),
so I think there are more important things on which to work.  How 'bout
fixing some of the bugs at http://emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com/emacs ?


        Stefan