From xemacs-m  Thu Feb 27 13:45:59 1997
Received: from crystal.WonderWorks.COM (crystal.WonderWorks.com [192.203.206.1])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA07849
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 13:45:50 -0600 (CST)
Received: by crystal.WonderWorks.COM 
	id QQcetb22862; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 14:45:51 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 14:45:51 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <QQcetb22862.199702271945@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Kyle Jones <kyle_jones@wonderworks.com>
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: Several minor bugs.
In-Reply-To: <m2afoqujmb.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
References: <kig914axpbk.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
	<rjlo8adwrw.fsf@zuse.dina.kvl.dk>
	<m2afoqujmb.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
X-Face: /cA45WHG7jWq>(O3&Z57Y<"WsX5ddc,4c#w0F*zrV#=M
        0@~@,s;b,aMtR5Sqs"+nU.z^CSFQ9t`z2>W,S,]:[+2^
        Nbf6v4g>!&,7R4Ot4Wg{&tm=WX7P["9%a)_da48-^tGy
        ,qz]Z,Zz\{E.,]'EO+F)@$KtF&V

Steven L Baur writes:
 > What about Stig's objection?
 > 
 > ;; This was not present before.  I think Jamie had some objections
 > ;; to this, so I'm leaving this undefined for now. --ben
 > 
 > ;;; The objection is this: there is more than one way to load the same file.
 > ;;; "foo", "foo.elc", "foo.el", and "/some/path/foo.elc" are all differrent
 > ;;; ways to load the exact same code.  `eval-after-load' is too stupid to
 > ;;; deal with this sort of thing.  If this sort of feature is desired, then
 > ;;; it should work off of a hook on `provide'.  Features are unique and
 > ;;; the arguments to (load) are not.  --Stig

The question I suppose is "how intense is your religious fervor
today?"  Is Stig's objection worth being incompatible?  Is having
no support for the feature at all better than copying the
admittedly flawed FSF Emacs code?

My own answers to these questions are, "not very", "no" and "no".

