From xemacs-m  Wed Apr 30 07:33:47 1997
Received: from argon.roma2.infn.it (lorenzo@ARGON.ROMA2.INFN.IT [141.108.16.147])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA03436
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 07:33:37 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from localhost (lorenzo@localhost)
	by argon.roma2.infn.it (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA10462
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 14:35:08 +0200
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 14:35:08 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Lorenzo M. Catucci" <lorenzo@argon.roma2.infn.it>
To: XEmacs Developers <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>
Subject: pc-select: does it make sense to wrap the code to make a dual headed package?
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970430142848.10435B-100000@argon.roma2.infn.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Dear readers, 
	I'm here with a small question-suggestion: now, pc-select works
(at last in my still limited tests, but I think there will not be any more
problems), and we changed only two things: the names of the keys, and the
ensure-mark function (add to them a couple of minor corrections in other
places I made before my call for help). What impact would have on the
timings, and the code size, if we wrap these differences in conditionally
executed code for gnu and X emacs? This way, we could hope our patches to
get more widespread, and avoid the problems with people trying to use the
wrong version of the program.

Yours,

lorenzo

