From owner-ntemacs-users@june Tue Aug 27 13:49:08 1996 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] [nil "Tue" "27" "August" "1996" "14:08:41" "-0600" "John Turner" "turner@xdiv.lanl.gov" nil "42" "Re: Getting italic fonts (was Re: fonts in Info mode)" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: from joker.cs.washington.edu (joker.cs.washington.edu [128.95.1.42]) by june.cs.washington.edu (8.7.5/7.2ju) with SMTP id NAA07117 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 13:49:08 -0700 Received: from june.cs.washington.edu (june.cs.washington.edu [128.95.1.4]) by joker.cs.washington.edu (8.6.12/7.2ws+) with ESMTP id NAA41945 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 13:49:06 -0700 Received: from mailhost.lanl.gov (mailhost.lanl.gov [128.165.3.12]) by june.cs.washington.edu (8.7.5/7.2ju) with ESMTP id NAA02882 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 13:09:57 -0700 Received: from xdiv.lanl.gov (xdiv.lanl.gov [128.165.116.106]) by mailhost.lanl.gov (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA26573; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 14:09:42 -0600 (MDT) Received: from branagh.lanl.gov (branagh.lanl.gov [128.165.16.72]) by xdiv.lanl.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA00461; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 14:09:40 -0600 Received: by branagh.lanl.gov (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA28430; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 14:08:41 -0600 Message-Id: <199608272008.OAA28430@branagh.lanl.gov> In-Reply-To: <9608271716.AA14206@infograph.com> References: <3212AE9D@ms-smtp.wa.com> <199608271644.RAA17278@propos.long.harlequin.co.uk> <9608271716.AA14206@infograph.com> Reply-To: turner@lanl.gov From: John Turner To: rjf@infograph.com Cc: ntemacs-users@cs.washington.edu Subject: Re: Getting italic fonts (was Re: fonts in Info mode) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 14:08:41 -0600 Ron Forrester writes: > Can you explain the problem with having fonts of differing heights > (from an Emacs perspective)? Just wanted to mention that this is one of the differences between GNU Emacs and GNU XEmacs. The latter supports variable-height lines. Here are some other differences, culled from the XEmacs FAQ. Visit www.xemacs.org for more info. It looks nicer. *Many more bundled packages than GNU Emacs, all properly integrated with XEmacs (e.g. VM). *Binaries are available for many common operating systems. Face support on TTY's. A built-in toolbar. Better Motif compliance. Some internationalization support (full MULE support starting with 20.0). *Variable-width fonts. *Variable-height lines. Marginal annotations. *ToolTalk support. XEmacs can be used as an Xt widget, and can be embedded within another application. *Horizontal and vertical scrollbars (using real toolkit scrollbars) Better APIs (and performance) for attaching fonts, colors, and other properties to text. *The ability to embed arbitrary graphics in a buffer. Completely compatible (at the C level) with the Xt-based toolkits. First production Web Browser supporting Style Sheets * - Primary reasons I use XEmacs everywhere I can, and hope a 95/NT effort for XEmacs gets underway sometime. +-----------------------+--------------------------------------------------+ |John A. Turner |"Music is the cup which holds the wine of silence;| |Los Alamos Natl. Lab. | sound is that cup, but empty; | |e-mail: turner@lanl.gov| noise is that cup, but broken." | | | - Robert Fripp | +-----------------------+--------------------------------------------------+ From marcpa@cam.org Thu Apr 10 20:17:20 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil t nil nil nil nil] [nil "Thu" "10" "April" "1997" "23:13:58" "-0400" "Marc Paquette" "marcpa@cam.org" "<334DAC76.2BA9453F@cam.org>" "20" "Ongoing XEmacs port to WindowsNT" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: from Nimbus.CAM.ORG (Nimbus.CAM.ORG [198.168.100.4]) by june.cs.washington.edu (8.8.5+CS/7.2ju) with ESMTP id UAA27430 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 20:17:19 -0700 Received: from marcpa (marcpa.HIP.CAM.ORG [205.151.117.79]) by Nimbus.CAM.ORG (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id XAA25420; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 23:17:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <334DAC76.2BA9453F@cam.org> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0b3 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Marc Paquette To: Geoff Voelker CC: David Hobley , David Hobley , Steven L Baur Subject: Ongoing XEmacs port to WindowsNT Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 23:13:58 -0400 Hello, I just wanted to let you know that David Hobley and me have started to port XEmacs (version 20.1) to Windows NT. Parts of this port are based on yours of GNU Emacs 19.34 (and we are very grateful to you for having completed this port). David and me have been careful at keeping the correct attributions to you and to the FSF when we adapt files that are part of GNU Emacs 19.34. However, if you ever find something not correctly attributed, please let us know as soon as possible. As of XEmacs 20.1 beta11, the changes for NT are part of official beta distributions. Therefore, you should be able to have a look at the distribution on ftp.xemacs.org if you want to. Regards, -- Marc Paquette marcpa@cam.org From marcpa@cam.org Fri Apr 11 05:26:11 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] [nil "Fri" "11" "April" "1997" "08:14:47" "-0400" "Marc Paquette" "marcpa@cam.org" nil "49" "Re: Ongoing XEmacs port to WindowsNT" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: from Nimbus.CAM.ORG (Nimbus.CAM.ORG [198.168.100.4]) by june.cs.washington.edu (8.8.5+CS/7.2ju) with ESMTP id FAA20294 for ; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 05:26:10 -0700 Received: from marcpa (marcpa.HIP.CAM.ORG [205.151.117.79]) by Nimbus.CAM.ORG (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id IAA17131; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 08:26:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <334E2B37.E2F41BF5@cam.org> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0b3 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <334DAC76.2BA9453F@cam.org> <199704110640.XAA32155@joker.cs.washington.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Marc Paquette To: Geoff Voelker CC: david_hobley@optusvision.com.au, david@cia.com.au, steve@miranova.com, Andrew Innes Subject: Re: Ongoing XEmacs port to WindowsNT Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 08:14:47 -0400 Geoff Voelker wrote: > > Marc, > > Thanks for letting me know. I appreciate your taking the time and > effort to make proper attributions, and I want to take this > opportunity to make sure that Andrew Innes' efforts are properly > attributed, too. Andrew has done a tremendous amount of work on the > NT port, and he has made improvements in almost all areas of the > system: what you see before you wouldn't be what it is without Andrew. > Ok, I'll make sure Andrew's name is also mentionned when talking about the basis of this port. > I will check out the port when I get an opportunity. Out of > curiosity, and because I'm too lazy right now to unpack the source, I > sort of remember David previously saying something about using X > libraries to do the port; are you indeed using the X libraries? > Yes first step is to use the X libraries, and we're pretty close to have it working. I'm currently writing code to be able to use it as a Windows CONSOLE application (the idea is to get something similar to tty support). It is very preliminary, I haven't even tried to compiled it yet. If you or Andrew have any thaughts on this, I would be pleased to hear it, even if it is to say "It's impossible, don't do it.". Finally, I intend to make it a native Win32 UI application as the last step. This is where the biggest effort will be required from me (and anyone who will be willing to contribute) since this means adding support for XEmacs features such as toolbars and inlined images. If all goes well, we'll end up with a XEmacs having X, CONSOLE and Win32 GUI capabilities. > Good luck in your efforts. I know that there will be a large number > of UNIX xemacs users who will be happy to have an xemacs port. And if > you have suggestions that you think we should know about, I would > appreciate them. > > -geoff > Thanks again to you and Andrew. -- Marc Paquette marcpa@cam.org From marcpa@CAM.ORG Sun Nov 30 18:31:03 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] [nil "Sun" "30" "November" "1997" "21:32:35" "-0500" "Marc Paquette" "marcpa@cam.org" nil "39" "Re: ifdef's" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: from Hydro.CAM.ORG (Hydro.CAM.ORG [198.168.100.7]) by june.cs.washington.edu (8.8.7+CS/7.2ju) with ESMTP id SAA01179 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 18:31:02 -0800 Received: from marcpa (marcpa.HIP.CAM.ORG [205.151.117.79]) by Hydro.CAM.ORG (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id VAA14817; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 21:30:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <348221C3.A005B6F0@cam.org> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Marc Paquette To: Hrvoje Niksic , Geoff Voelker CC: xemacs-nt@xemacs.org Subject: Re: ifdef's Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 21:32:35 -0500 Let's ask principal porter of FSF Emacs on NT: Geoff, what's the difference intended between DOSNT and WINDOWSNT ? Hrvoje Niksic wrote: > > I notice several different #ifdef styles in the sources: > > #ifdef MSDOS > > #ifdef DOSNT > #ifdef WINDOWSNT > > #ifdef HAVE_MS_WINDOWS > > The first style is traditional, the second ones seem to stem from > late-ish FSF sources (maybe from Ben's v19.30 synch), and the third > one is ours. > > Which one should we use? I think it's important to have some sort of > consistency, so we don't go insane! I beleive that we could do the same thing with MSDOS specific code that we did for VMS code, i.e. remove it completly. Or will that compromise running on Windows95 ? HAVE_MS_WINDOWS is akin to HAVE_X_WINDOWS, i.e. it is window-system specific, so it ought to be a different define that for os-specific things. > > -- > Hrvoje Niksic | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia > --------------------------------+-------------------------------- > Speak softly and carry a +6 two-handed sword. -- Marc Paquette marcpa@cam.org From hniksic@jagor.srce.hr Sun Nov 30 18:46:49 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil t nil nil nil nil] [nil "" " 1" "December" "1997" "03:46:32" "+0100" "Hrvoje Niksic" "hniksic@srce.hr" "" "45" "Re: ifdef's" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: from jagor.srce.hr (jagor.srce.hr [161.53.2.130]) by june.cs.washington.edu (8.8.7+CS/7.2ju) with ESMTP id SAA01610 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 18:46:47 -0800 Received: (from hniksic@localhost) by jagor.srce.hr (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA13871; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 03:46:33 +0100 (MET) References: <348221C3.A005B6F0@cam.org> X-Attribution: Hrvoje X-Face: Mie8:rOV<\c/~z{s.X4A{!?vY7{drJ([U]0O=W/xDi&N7XG KV^$k0m3Oe/)'e%3=$PCR&3ITUXH,cK>]bci&Ff%x_>1`T(+M2Gg/fgndU%k*ft [(7._6e0n-V%|%'[c|q:;}td$#INd+;?!-V=c8Pqf}3J In-Reply-To: Marc Paquette's message of "Sun, 30 Nov 1997 21:32:35 -0500" Message-ID: Lines: 45 X-Mailer: Quassia Gnus v0.17/XEmacs 20.4(beta7) - "Appenzell" From: Hrvoje Niksic To: Marc Paquette Cc: Geoff Voelker , xemacs-nt@xemacs.org Subject: Re: ifdef's Date: 01 Dec 1997 03:46:32 +0100 Marc Paquette writes: > I beleive that we could do the same thing with MSDOS specific code that > we did for VMS code, i.e. remove it completly. Or will that compromise > running on Windows95 ? There should be an ifdef for Windows 95, too. I have noticed things commented out because "Windows 95 doesn't support them." IMHO it should all be ifdefed properly, e.g.: ...stuff pertaining to DOS... #ifdef MSDOS ...stuff pertaining to DOS and any WINDOWS... #ifdef DOSWINDOWS ...stuff pertaining to Windows NT or 95... #ifdef MSWINDOWS ...stuff pertaining to Windows NT only... #ifdef WINDOWSNT ...stuff pertaining to Windows 95 only... #ifdef WINDOWS95 ...stuff pertaining to Windows as a window-system (XEmacs-specific)... #ifdef HAVE_MS_WINDOWS That way, there would be no surprises. For instance, the code to make file completions case-insensitive would be under #ifdef DOSWINDOWS. > HAVE_MS_WINDOWS is akin to HAVE_X_WINDOWS, i.e. it is window-system > specific, so it ought to be a different define that for os-specific > things. Yes, but unlike Unix, Windows will always have a Window system. Although, conceptually, one should be able to build an XEmacs without support for a windowing system, running only in `-nw' mode (once that is implemented under Windows), so I see your point. -- Hrvoje Niksic | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia --------------------------------+-------------------------------- "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth From davidh@wr.com.au Sun Nov 30 23:37:13 1997 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil t nil nil nil nil] [nil "Mon" " 1" "December" "1997" "18:37:57" "+1100" "David Hobley" "davidh@wr.com.au" "<3.0.32.19971201183654.00942690@mail.wr.com.au>" "54" "Re: ifdef's" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: from mail.wr.com.au (wr.com.au [203.12.42.10]) by june.cs.washington.edu (8.8.7+CS/7.2ju) with ESMTP id XAA09887 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 23:37:11 -0800 Received: from ishtar (dialup115.wr.com.au [203.12.42.215]) by mail.wr.com.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA18473; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 18:35:31 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19971201183654.00942690@mail.wr.com.au> X-Sender: davidh@mail.wr.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: David Hobley To: Marc Paquette , Hrvoje Niksic , Geoff Voelker Cc: xemacs-nt@xemacs.org Subject: Re: ifdef's Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 18:37:57 +1100 I think MSDOS was a hangover from an old port of Emacs to DOS. DOS_NT was for the non gui version of Emacs which I kept over. WINDOWSNT was my name so I could remember which bits of Geoff's code I had visited and which I hadn't. In short we should probably keep WINDOWSNT and HAVE_MS_WINDOWS for O/S stuff and Win32 GUI stuff respectively. I _think_ we can delete MSDOS code and rename DOS_NT to WINDOWSNT. At 21:32 30/11/97 -0500, Marc Paquette wrote: >Let's ask principal porter of FSF Emacs on NT: > >Geoff, what's the difference intended between DOSNT and WINDOWSNT ? > >Hrvoje Niksic wrote: >> >> I notice several different #ifdef styles in the sources: >> >> #ifdef MSDOS >> >> #ifdef DOSNT >> #ifdef WINDOWSNT >> >> #ifdef HAVE_MS_WINDOWS >> >> The first style is traditional, the second ones seem to stem from >> late-ish FSF sources (maybe from Ben's v19.30 synch), and the third >> one is ours. >> >> Which one should we use? I think it's important to have some sort of >> consistency, so we don't go insane! > >I beleive that we could do the same thing with MSDOS specific code that >we did for VMS code, i.e. remove it completly. Or will that compromise >running on Windows95 ? > >HAVE_MS_WINDOWS is akin to HAVE_X_WINDOWS, i.e. it is window-system >specific, so it ought to be a different define that for os-specific >things. > >> >> -- >> Hrvoje Niksic | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia >> --------------------------------+-------------------------------- >> Speak softly and carry a +6 two-handed sword. > >-- >Marc Paquette >marcpa@cam.org > -- Cheers, david http://www.angelfire.com/wa/hobley