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: <013b01c084a3$8f476390$84340aa9@mmm.com>
From: "Mike Bresnahan" <mbresnahan1 AT mmm DOT com>
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re: NTEmacs shell/CygWin: should control-C work?
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:45:57 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300

XEmacs and GNU emacs are different in many ways.  I switched to XEmacs a few
years ago and then switched back to GNU emacs.  Some differences of note:

- There are subtle differences in the LISP code.  You may have to make
changes to your .emacs file.
- XEmacs is also considerbly slower to load and perform other tasks.
- XEmacs does not have the ctrl-<left click> buffer menu.
- Lots of other small differences in the interface

Mike Bresnahan
----- Original Message -----
From: Dr. Volker Zell <Dr DOT Volker DOT Zell AT oracle DOT com>
To: Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) <lhall AT rfk DOT com>
Cc: Daniel Barclay <Daniel DOT Barclay AT digitalfocus DOT com>;
<ehud AT unix DOT simonwiesel DOT co DOT il>; <cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: NTEmacs shell/CygWin: should control-C work?


> >>>>> "RFK" == RFK Partners, Inc <Larry> writes:
>
>     RFK> 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)?
>
>
>     RFK> I, of course, am not qualified to answer that question since I
don't use
>     RFK> Emacs at all.  Others might be able to help.  You may be better
off asking
>     RFK> this question on some Emacs list though...
>
> I've done the switch a long time ago. NO big deal.
> Just switch of the toolbar and it feels like Emacs.
>
> Ciao
>   Volker
>
>
> --
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
>



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