From xemacs-m  Sun May 18 17:19:22 1997
Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (mercury.Sun.COM [192.9.25.1])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA11711
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sun, 18 May 1997 17:19:20 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from Corp.Sun.COM ([129.145.35.78]) by mercury.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/mail.byaddr) with SMTP id PAA17060 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sun, 18 May 1997 15:33:24 -0700
Received: from legba.Corp.Sun.COM by Corp.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-5.3)
	id PAA29133; Sun, 18 May 1997 15:19:30 -0700
Received: by legba.Corp.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id PAA15022; Sun, 18 May 1997 15:19:28 -0700
To: Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Gary.Foster@Corp.Sun.COM (Gary D. Foster)
Date: 18 May 1997 15:19:28 -0700
In-Reply-To: Hrvoje Niksic's message of 18 May 1997 23:55:21 +0200
Message-ID: <bcibu681kzz.fsf@corp.Sun.COM>
Lines: 41
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.52/XEmacs 20.2

> 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?  I guess what I'm
trying to wrap my head around here is what you are trying to say that
you want.  Do you want me to remove the damn hook completely?  Is that 
you're only complaint?  If my frustration is coming across as
belligerance I apologize... I'm not *meaning* to be hostile, I'm just
starting to get quite confused.

> What I am arguing against is the fact that your solution regards the
> `define-key' method as deprecated, offering a new and incompatible
> replacement for it (as long as one wants to be a decent citizen, of
> course).  For me, it is not a good design -- you replace one special
> case with another.  The latter works, yes, but it's still a hack.

Again, all I'm trying to find out here is just exactly what you're
main gripe is here so I can address it.  I haven't removed anything,
but I have added a hook to the function... yes, I'd think that the
hook would be a *cleaner* way of implementing something, but that's
just my opinion... all I want to do is fix the darn problem, but maybe
I'm getting the mistaken impression that you are trying to throw the
baby out with the bath water here... if that's the wrong impression
than I apologize for misinterperating your critiques and I'd
appreciate it if you would enumerate exactly what you would *like* to
see in order to be able to stomach my changes.  I can't guarantee that
I'll agree with you, and I can't guarantee that I'm going to make
those changes, but I can guarantee that I will listen to them with an
open mind if you'll take the time to enumerate them.

I also will not change my opinion that using a hook is cleaner than
using a define-key, 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.  I refuse to treat this as a crusade.

-- Gary F.

