Re: Strange change in bytecmop.el

[David Kastrup]

Juanma Barranquero <address@hidden> writes:

> However, supporting "(boundp 'emacs)" would make sense.

So, just _when_ would you use it?

> I don't think we're in the business of telling outside elisp
> developers whether they should consider Emacs or XEmacs the "main
> line".

You just said above that making the distinction only makes sense for
packages maintained externally.

> If a guy uses XEmacs and develops a package for it, and he's nice
> enough to make allowances for it to work on Emacs, it's a bit absurd
> to ask him to consider Emacs the main line and put XEmacs code
> inside guards. Supporting the 'emacs feature is not a big deal, but
> it is certainly nicer to non-Emacs developers (at least long term).

I don't see that.  I am afraid of people putting (boundp 'emacs) into
code also for things that Emacs happens to have _now_, even though
XEmacs might gain them in a later synch, or just putting (boundp
'emacs) habitually in without thinking anything about it.

I really think that this is one change that we are better off without.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum