[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: proced.el [was: docstrings in dired.el]
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: proced.el [was: docstrings in dired.el] |
Date: |
Sat, 24 May 2008 18:27:14 +0300 |
> From: Richard M Stallman <address@hidden>
> CC: address@hidden, address@hidden
> Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 10:13:25 -0400
>
> Then someone else could reimplement them in
> a portable fashion.
>
> I tend to think it is better to leave this unportable code in Lisp
> than to move it to C, because I think the amount of unportable
> code in C would be much much more.
Now I have a challenge in hand to prove that you are wrong.
- Re: docstrings in dired.el, (continued)
- Re: docstrings in dired.el, David Kastrup, 2008/05/23
- Re: docstrings in dired.el, Michael Olson, 2008/05/23
- Re: docstrings in dired.el, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/05/23
- Re: proced.el [was: docstrings in dired.el], Roland Winkler, 2008/05/23
- Re: proced.el [was: docstrings in dired.el], Eli Zaretskii, 2008/05/23
- Re: proced.el [was: docstrings in dired.el], Roland Winkler, 2008/05/23
- Re: proced.el [was: docstrings in dired.el], Eli Zaretskii, 2008/05/24
- Re: proced.el [was: docstrings in dired.el], Roland Winkler, 2008/05/24
- Re: proced.el [was: docstrings in dired.el], Eli Zaretskii, 2008/05/24
- Re: proced.el [was: docstrings in dired.el], Richard M Stallman, 2008/05/24
- Re: proced.el [was: docstrings in dired.el],
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: proced.el, Stefan Monnier, 2008/05/24
- Re: proced.el, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/05/24
- Re: proced.el, Stefan Monnier, 2008/05/24
Re: docstrings in dired.el, Richard M Stallman, 2008/05/23