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:	<4.3.1.2.20010118112140.026d70b0@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
X-Sender:	lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com
X-Mailer:	QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1
Date:	Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:22:56 -0500
To:	Daniel Barclay <Daniel DOT Barclay AT digitalfocus DOT com>
From:	"Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall AT rfk DOT com>
Subject:	Re: NTEmacs shell/CygWin: should control-C work?
Cc:	ehud AT unix DOT simonwiesel DOT co DOT il, cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<3A671842.3C417BDD@digitalfocus.com>
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>
Mime-Version:	1.0

At 11:22 AM 1/18/2001, Daniel Barclay wrote:
>"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)?


I, of course, am not qualified to answer that question since I don't use
Emacs at all.  Others might be able to help.  You may be better off asking
this question on some Emacs list though...



Larry Hall                              lhall AT rfk DOT com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
118 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX



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

- Raw text -