Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID:	<3A671842.3C417BDD@digitalfocus.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:22:26 -0500
From:	Daniel Barclay <Daniel DOT Barclay AT digitalfocus DOT com>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.76 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language:	en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	"Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall AT rfk DOT com>
CC:	ehud AT unix DOT simonwiesel DOT co DOT il, cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Subject:	Re: NTEmacs shell/CygWin: should control-C work?
References:	<3A5F5F1C DOT 3879B2CF AT digitalfocus DOT com>
	<3A5E32A6 DOT 557FEAE7 AT digitalfocus DOT com>
	<uyg0ip3ddt DOT fsf AT tcsi DOT com>
	<3A5F5F1C DOT 3879B2CF AT digitalfocus DOT com>
	<4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20010112164936 DOT 022cabc8 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com> <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20010116141835 DOT 026d2cb0 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com>

"Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" wrote:
> 
> At 02:15 PM 1/16/2001, Daniel Barclay wrote:
> >"Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" wrote:
> > >
> >...
> > > ... However,
> > > I can say you'll have better luck with a Cygwin version of Emacs, like
> > > XEmacs.  You'll find Cygwin applications work much better with other
> > > Cygwin applications, especially in areas of detail like this.
> >
> >How different is XEmacs from GNU/NTEmacs?
> >
> >(I don't do much (any) Lisp programming, so I guess I'm just asking about
> >default configuration and about compatibility of add-ons like JDE.)
> 
> Sorry, I was a little unclear.  AFAIK, there is a Cygwin version of XEmacs
> but there isn't one for NTEmacs.  My main point was that signal functionality
> can be handled by Cygwin (and is) or by the O/S.  However, the signal coming
> from a Win32 app doesn't get the same response out of Cygwin as one coming
> from a Cygwin app.  If you have problems in this area, your best bet is to
> use Cygwin-enabled versions of apps when available.

I just meant how different is XEmacs from NTEmacs to the user?  If I switch 
from NTEmacs (which I'm used to) to XEmacs (which I don't know), how big a 
change is that likely to been (from the Emacs user point of view)?

Daniel


-- 
Daniel Barclay
Digital Focus
Daniel DOT Barclay AT digitalfocus DOT com

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -