Re: XEmacs, Emacs and elisp
On 26 Feb 1997 17:20:39 +0100 Milan Zamazal (pdm@blackbird.ics.muni.cz
) wrote:
> >>>>> "HG" == Helmut Geyer <Helmut.Geyer@IWR.Uni-Heidelberg.De> writes:
>
> HG: 1) The main problem is that XEmacs (19.14) cannot read Emacs
> HG: (19.34) byte-compiled lisp files, while Emacs can in fact read
> HG: XEmacs compiled .elc files. If you want to have a directory
> HG: containing lisp files for both of them (it certainly is
> HG: possible to support both variants in a single lisp file), you
> HG: have to ensure that only XEmacs is used for byte-compiling.
>
> What is the exact difference between Emacs & XEmacs byte-code? If
> Emacs byte-code is faster or has any other advantage (why they changed
> it?), I don't agree with this solution.
I second this. GNU Emacs's (some call it RMS Emacs, or FSF Emacs,
this is just plain religious war) bytecode is enhanced compared to
XEmacs's. Maybe a solution:
o intall on .el files
o if only one emacs in installed, byte-compile during install with
this emacs
o if both are installed, ask if you want to bytecompile the .el
for each emacs (resulting in increased disk space), or if you want to
bytecompile with xemacs (resulting in slightly degraded performance
with GNU emacs).
Phil.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com
Reply to: