From xemacs-m  Tue Mar 25 01:06:49 1997
Received: from mailbox1.ucsd.edu (mailbox1.ucsd.edu [132.239.1.53])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA11109
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 01:06:48 -0600 (CST)
Received: from sdnp5.ucsd.edu (sdnp5.ucsd.edu [132.239.79.10]) by mailbox1.ucsd.edu (8.8.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA11473 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 23:06:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by sdnp5.ucsd.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id XAA11391; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 23:08:38 -0800
Sender: dmoore@sdnp5.ucsd.edu
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: XE19.15-B104: 'xemacs -batch' misdemeanor
References: <9703241553.AA03158@ndsoft.com> 	<m2bu88a6hm.fsf@altair.xemacs.org> <QQciiy00452.199703250608@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
X-Face: "oX;zS#-JU$-,WKSzG.1gGE]x^cIg!hW.dq>.f6pzS^A+(k!T|M:}5{_%>Io<>L&{hO7W4cicOQ|>/lZ1G(m%7iaCf,6Qgk0%%Bz7b2-W3jd0m_UG\Y;?]}4s0O-U)uox>P3JN)9cm]O\@,vy2e{`3pb!"pqmRy3peB90*2L
Mail-Copies-To: never
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: David Moore <dmoore@ucsd.edu>
Date: 24 Mar 1997 23:08:37 -0800
In-Reply-To: Kyle Jones's message of Tue, 25 Mar 1997 01:08:03 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <rvvi6gphxm.fsf@sdnp5.ucsd.edu>
Lines: 38
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.36/XEmacs 19.15(beta104)

Kyle Jones <kyle_jones@wonderworks.com> writes:

> Steven L Baur writes:
>  > Unless someone argues convincingly against it, I'm going to fix 20.1
>  > so that -batch  does imply `-q -no-site-file'.
> 
> Continued functioning of code that expects the old behavior.
> Why should batch processing imply no local initialization,
> particularly when we have flags to disable this initialization?
> Why should the burden to convince be on those who just want to
> things to keep working?

The man page [1] does not say that -batch implies -no-site-init and
-no-init-ile, nor does the emacs man page that I have.  The xemacs info
file says only that -batch implies -q.  The emacs 19.34 info file says
that -batch implies -q.  And it further states:

`--no-site-file'
     Do not load `site-start.el'.  The options `-q', `-u' and `-batch'
     have no effect on the loading of this file--this is the only
     option that blocks it.


So, I say, don't fix it, if it ain't broke. [2]


[1] Does the man page need updating for the new developer contacts?
[2] The makefiles might be broke, or not depending.  If you are going to
    batch compile things, you probably don't need site-init.  Unless of
    course they point it at a different byte-compiler or newer versions
    of packages which the compilee might want to know about.
[3] I've got the footnote [3] disease.

-- 
David Moore <dmoore@ucsd.edu>       | Computer Systems Lab      __o
UCSD Dept. Computer Science - 0114  | Work: (619) 534-8604    _ \<,_
La Jolla, CA 92093-0114             | Fax:  (619) 534-1445   (_)/ (_)
<URL:http://oj.egbt.org/dmoore/>    | In a cloud bones of steel.

