How do I portably code for MULE/XEmacs?
MORIOKA Tomohiko writes: MULE and XEmacs are quite different. So the application implementor must write separate code for these mule variants. MULE and the next version of Emacs are similar but the symbols are very different–requiring separate code as well. Namely we must support 3 kinds of mule variants and 4 or 5 or 6 kinds of emacs variants… (;_;) I’m shocked, so I wrote a wrapper package called emu to provide a common interface. I have the following suggestions about dealing with mule variants: • (featurep ‘mule) t on all mule variants • (boundp ‘MULE) is t on only MULE. Maybe the next version of Emacs will not have this symbol. • MULE has a variable mule-version. Perhaps the next version of Emacs will have this variable as well.
MORIOKA Tomohiko writes: MULE and XEmacs are quite different. So the application implementor must write separate code for these mule variants. MULE and the next version of Emacs are similar but the symbols are very different–requiring separate code as well. Namely we must support 3 kinds of mule variants and 4 or 5 or 6 kinds of emacs variants… (;_;) I’m shocked, so I wrote a wrapper package called emu to provide a common interface. I have the following suggestions about dealing with mule variants: • (featurep ‘mule) t on all mule variants • (boundp ‘MULE) is t on only MULE. Maybe the next version of Emacs will not have this symbol. • MULE has a variable mule-version. Perhaps the next version of Emacs will have this variable as well.
