Re: MS-Windows build broken in Fmake_network_process

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Eli Zaretskii writes:
 > > From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden>
 > > Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:57:31 +0900
 > > Cc: Óscar Fuentes <address@hidden>, address@hidden
 > > 
 > > Richard Stallman writes:
 > > 
 > >  > However, it is not a high priority for us, because supporting any
 > >  > version of Windows is not a high priority for us.  We have no
 > >  > commitment to support Windows 9, or Windows 7, or any version of
 > >  > Windows.  People work on this if they want to do it, and they can
 > >  > choose which platforms to support.
 > > 
 > > The point is that some developers find the very need to make the
 > > choice (eg, having to parse #ifdefs that refer to Windows-related
 > > code) annoying
 > 
 > I fail to see how these #ifdefs should be more annoying than similar
 > ones for Posix systems.

Nobody said that they were more annoying than other #ifdefs, only that
they are more annoying than no #ifdefs.  Haven't you recently removed
quite a few #ifdefs and #defines in the process of pruning away code
for supporting extinct *nix systems?  I know we have.

 > And the issue in this thread was not about dropping Windows support
 > altogether, only about supporting older Windows systems, which
 > contribute no #ifdefs whatsoever.

Whatever.  Eli, one of the reasons I work on XEmacs, not SXEmacs, is
that SXEmacs made the choice to remove *all* Windows support.  It's a
decision I disagree with, personally.  But I acknowledge their
motivation, and I think you and Richard are making a mistake by
ignoring the costs those #ifdefs and maintenance of the Windows code
do impose on non-Windows developers, and saying that it's only an
issue of whether Windows developers want to support it or not.