From xemacs-m  Sun May 18 18:20:43 1997
Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (mercury.Sun.COM [192.9.25.1])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA13200
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sun, 18 May 1997 18:20:43 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from Corp.Sun.COM ([129.145.35.78]) by mercury.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/mail.byaddr) with SMTP id QAA18242 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sun, 18 May 1997 16:34:50 -0700
Received: from legba.Corp.Sun.COM by Corp.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-5.3)
	id QAA00336; Sun, 18 May 1997 16:20:55 -0700
Received: by legba.Corp.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id QAA15237; Sun, 18 May 1997 16:20:54 -0700
To: Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>
Cc: XEmacs Developers <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>
Subject: Re: DEL patch, as promised.
References: <bciaflv2kuv.fsf@corp.Sun.COM> <kigiv0jrthb.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> <bci67wj2dqa.fsf@corp.Sun.COM> <kighgg25pjk.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> <bcihgg01obw.fsf@corp.Sun.COM> <kig2074a1iu.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> <bcibu681kzz.fsf@corp.Sun.COM> <kigwwow8l4v.fsf@jagor.srce.hr> <bcizptsz8tt.fsf@corp.Sun.COM> <kigsozk8jb6.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Gary.Foster@Corp.Sun.COM (Gary D. Foster)
Date: 18 May 1997 16:20:54 -0700
In-Reply-To: Hrvoje Niksic's message of 19 May 1997 01:14:05 +0200
Message-ID: <bciu3k0z7s9.fsf@corp.Sun.COM>
Lines: 26
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.52/XEmacs 20.2

Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> writes:

> Gary.Foster@Corp.Sun.COM (Gary D. Foster) writes:
> 
> > This provides that.  It doesn't require you to use the hook at all.
> 
> Yes, but then you don't get the new functionality, if I understand
> correctly.  That's what I'm trying to say all the time, you see.
> 

Why didn't you just SAY that?

Sheesh.  How in the heck do you expect me to provide the new
functionality to someone who insists on rebinding the delete key to
their own function?  I don't think that can be done right now... at
least not by me.
  
What is possible, though, is for someone who insists on writing their
own foo-electric-delete function to check the status of
`delete-erases-forward' and modify the behavior of their own function
appropriately.  I could probably hack that into the c-electric-delete
function of Barry's merely as a proof-of-concept.

Hmm...

-- Gary F.

