From xemacs-m  Sun May 18 17:34:47 1997
Received: from jagor.srce.hr (hniksic@jagor.srce.hr [161.53.2.130])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA11814
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sun, 18 May 1997 17:34:46 -0500 (CDT)
Received: (from hniksic@localhost)
          by jagor.srce.hr (8.8.5/8.8.4)
	  id AAA05583; Mon, 19 May 1997 00:34:41 +0200 (MET DST)
To: Gary.Foster@Corp.Sun.COM (Gary D. Foster)
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>
X-Save-Project-Gutenberg: <URL:http://www.promo.net/pg/nl/pgny_nov96.html>
X-Attribution: Hrv
X-Face: Mie8:rOV<\c/~z{s.X4A{!?vY7{drJ([U]0O=W/<W*SMo/Mv:58:*_y~ki>xDi&N7XG
        KV^$k0m3Oe/)'e%3=$PCR&3ITUXH,cK>]bci&<qQ>Ff%x_>1`T(+M2Gg/fgndU%k*ft
        [(7._6e0n-V%|%'[c|q:;}td$#INd+;?!-V=c8Pqf}3J
X-Horoscope: 
   Your alien will be fuscia in the next few seconds.  Your computer
   will need to be burped this month.  Loving your television now will
   turn out to be worthless after a few minutes.  You'll fall into a
   state of bozosity, but eventually be gay.
From: Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>
Date: 19 May 1997 00:34:40 +0200
In-Reply-To: Gary.Foster@Corp.Sun.COM's message of 18 May 1997 15:19:28 -0700
Message-ID: <kigwwow8l4v.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
Lines: 53
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.52/XEmacs 20.2

Gary.Foster@Corp.Sun.COM (Gary D. Foster) writes:

> > Yes, I know that.  Why haven't you read the article you reply to?
> > Citing:
> > 
> >     I have no doubt that your solution *works*.
> >     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> What makes you think I haven't read the article?

This:

| define-key STILL works in this setup.  You can still be (in my
| opinion) a bad citizen and (define-key...) to your heart's content and 
| it will *work* just like it does now.

And similar repeats several times, which lead me to believe that you
didn't bother to read the article where I explain that I do have trust
in the fact that your solution works.  And yes, I know that
`define-key' works (as before).

> I guess what I'm trying to wrap my head around here is what you are
> trying to say that you want.

I would prefer a solution that enabled normal `define-key' to work,
without the need for an additional hook.  If it proves to be
impossible, then your hook hack is certainly better than nothing.

> I also will not change my opinion that using a hook is cleaner than
> using a define-key,

You are entitled to your opinion, but it seems to be a strange way of
thinking.  All of the XEmacs keybindings are handled via `define-key', 
but you happen to prefer a hook!  Interesting.

> but if that's the only disagreement we are having here I'll just go
> drink a beer and not worry about it because in the final outcome,
> opinions are irrelevant... code is what really matters and I don't
> care if we have different opinions as long as we agree on what has
> to be done coding wise.

By all means, do drink a beer! :-)  But the most important thing in
all of this is not the choice of hook vs. function.  The important
thing is the quality of our implementation.

I am against implementing hacks just because they "make things work".
It's not good enough.

-- 
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it."                                    -- Donald Knuth

