[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Suggestion] New function `emacs-version>='
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: [Suggestion] New function `emacs-version>=' |
Date: |
Mon, 05 May 2003 15:11:09 -0400 |
A "lexical-order extension" of < and > looks like a good idea. A
remaining question:
- will `emacs-version>=' be defined based on that?
If anyone wants it, I guess so.
Of couse, as I said before, if a feature/fix A could be tested
*directly*, one should use that test, not some version or
Emacs-vs-XEmacs test. E.g.,
- (featurep 'some-feature)
- (fbound 'some-function) ; I only mentioned this in my prev mail
- (boundp 'some-var)
People have also shown various ways of testing the behavior of a function
to see if a bug has been fixed. I think those are good approaches.
But I agree with you that testing indirectly related
criteria--criteria that are only indirect ways of testing for a
certain version--is not wise, and that it is better to test the
version number openly than to for the version indirectly.
- Re: New function `emacs-version>=', (continued)
- Re: New function `emacs-version>=', Richard Stallman, 2003/05/04
- Re: New function `emacs-version>=', Reiner Steib, 2003/05/03
- Re: New function `emacs-version>=', Stefan Monnier, 2003/05/03
- sort-coding-systems in 21.3 and RC branch (was: New function `emacs-version>='), Reiner Steib, 2003/05/05
- Re: sort-coding-systems in 21.3 and RC branch (was: New function `emacs-version>='), Kenichi Handa, 2003/05/06
Re: [Suggestion] New function `emacs-version>=', Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2003/05/02
Re: [Suggestion] New function `emacs-version>=', Richard Stallman, 2003/05/04
Re: [Suggestion] New function `emacs-version>=', Istvan Marko, 2003/05/06
RE: [Suggestion] New function `emacs-version>=', Wedler, Christoph, 2003/05/05
RE: [Suggestion] New function `emacs-version>=', Wedler, Christoph, 2003/05/06
RE: [Suggestion] New function `emacs-version>=', Wedler, Christoph, 2003/05/07