Re: Pretest next week

[YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu]

>>>>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 08:51:46 +0000 (UTC), Adrian Robert <address@hidden> 
>>>>> said:

>> My concern is that the lack of proper C-g handling for such a long
>> term may imply a problem in the fundamental design of the port.  Of
>> course, no one can be sure unless someone refutes it by actually
>> implementing it.

> I won't dispute the second sentence, but the lack for a long term is
> simply because I've never found it a problem in my own usage
> patterns, and users haven't been particularly vocal in complaining
> about it either.  There have been other priorities.  But it's top of
> my list now.

I'm really surprised to hear that it hasn't have the top priority.
I've been thinking that proper C-g handling is a minimum requirement
to be a part of the official Emacs rather than an unofficial
distribution.  Without it, the port wouldn't be a "real Emacs".
Anyway, good to hear that now it has the top priority.

                                     YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu
                                address@hidden