From xemacs-m  Wed Jan 15 14:03:44 1997
Received: from crystal.WonderWorks.COM (crystal.WonderWorks.com [192.203.206.1])
          by xemacs.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP
	  id OAA23420 for <XEmacs-Beta@xemacs.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 14:03:42 -0600 (CST)
Received: by crystal.WonderWorks.COM 
	id QQbyqh02663; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 14:58:35 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 14:58:35 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <QQbyqh02663.199701151958@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Kyle_Jones?= <kyle_jones@wonderworks.com>
To: nuspl@purdue.edu
Cc: XEmacs-Beta@xemacs.org
Subject: overlays
In-Reply-To: <199701151845.NAA25601@nvwls.cc.purdue.edu>
References: <199701151845.NAA25601@nvwls.cc.purdue.edu>

One of the reasons I'm so glum about this project is that extens and
overlays are not really the same thing.  Code that does (fboundp
'make-overlay) and based on that expects real overlay semantics is
going to break.  Unless you are going to provide 100% compatibility,
providing the FSF Emacs interface functions under XEmacs is going to
break some code.  I have suffered under this kind of naming
confusion before, so I say with feeling about this kind of
compatibility effort:

"Do or do not.  There is no try."

