[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lost argument and doc string
From: |
Tak Ota |
Subject: |
Re: lost argument and doc string |
Date: |
Thu, 14 Feb 2002 07:13:52 -0800 (PST) |
Wed, 13 Feb 2002 20:11:53 -0700 (MST): Richard Stallman <address@hidden> wrote:
> I see my recollection was mistaken: make-docfile reads the binary
> files directly. Sorry if I caused any confusion.
I want to withdraw the previous several attempts of make-docfile.c
modification. I now prostrate myself before the old wisdom. We
should leave those elc files for make-docfile as elc. The effort to
make make-docfile.c a true lisp interpreter does not seem to pay
off. It is redundant as well as unnecessary.
I think the (lisp) variable definition below should be reverted.
2001-11-30 Andrew Innes <address@hidden>
* makefile.w32-in (FACE_SUPPORT):
(MOUSE_SUPPORT):
(FLOAT_SUPPORT):
(WINNT_SUPPORT):
(lisp): Reference .el files instead of .elc files, to simplify
bootstrapping.
($(DOC)): Change dependency to just `make-docfile'.
- Re: lost argument and doc string, (continued)
- Re: lost argument and doc string, Jason Rumney, 2002/02/13
- Re: lost argument and doc string, Tak Ota, 2002/02/13
- Re: lost argument and doc string, Jason Rumney, 2002/02/13
- Re: lost argument and doc string, Tak Ota, 2002/02/14
- Re: lost argument and doc string, Richard Stallman, 2002/02/15
- Re: lost argument and doc string, Tak Ota, 2002/02/15
- Re: lost argument and doc string, Tak Ota, 2002/02/13
- Re: lost argument and doc string, Richard Stallman, 2002/02/13
- Re: lost argument and doc string,
Tak Ota <=
- Re: lost argument and doc string, Richard Stallman, 2002/02/13
- Re: lost argument and doc string, Richard Stallman, 2002/02/11