Talk:XEmacs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Code Sharing
- "Since both emacsen share the same license, code can be transplanted back and forth between them"
You forgot to add "... but because FSF want to have copyright assignments for all of GNU Emacs code they can't just take code from XEmacs". --Taw
- Done. --CYD
[edit] Image Display
- "Inline images are available without tricks."
Could someone clarify this statement? As far as I can see, inline images work fine in Emacs 21, without any hackery. --CYD
- If the statement does no longer apply, feel free to fix it. IIRC Emacs 20 was not able to display images inline without some clever kludgery. ----Robbe
[edit] Windows Implementation
Can anything objective be said about the pros and cons of GNU Emacs vs. Xemacs in their native Win 95/98/ME implementations? (Ditto Win NT/2000/XP implementations). I think many stuck on Windows, but eager to give Common Lisp a try, find deciding between the two emacsen as difficult as learning the emacs way. --Anonymous
[edit] OXYMORON
Do we need all these details about the various versions and subversions in the article? I would think that an external link would suffice. --Oleg Alexandrov 22:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
- Do we need any of this? I think these particular version names show something of the irreverent character of XEmacs, in contrast with More Sensible Emacs. The 21.5 vegetable series is less interesting. --Anonymous
[edit] good documentation or not
- "In the past, some detractors have complained that because of its more aggressive, features-driven approach, XEmacs internals are less consistent and less extensively documented than GNU Emacs. Actually, the opposite is true: XEmacs comes with a 140-page internals manual (Wing and Buchholz, 1997), making it one of the most well-documented software projects, and has been more open to change than GNU Emacs, with the result that its internals have been extensively rewritten to improve consistency and follow modern programming conventions stressing data abstraction."
Well does it have good documentation or not? Why does the article say it has poor documentation then contradict itself the next sentence and say it has good documentation? --68.40.198.96 18:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
