Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!seismo!ut-sally!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!nrc-ut!nrcvax!ihm
From: ihm@nrcvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.emacs
Subject: Re: Naughty, naughty!
Message-ID: <812@nrcvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Mar-87 16:45:50 EST
Article-I.D.: nrcvax.812
Posted: Thu Mar 19 16:45:50 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Mar-87 22:19:21 EST
References: <883@cullvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: ihm@minnie.UUCP (Ian Merritt)
Organization: The Frobboz Magic Emacs Co., Inc.
Lines: 18

al@seismo.CSS.GOV@siac.UUCP writes:
> the problem stems largely from the fact that an int 
> is not the same size as a (char *).  the GNU code makes this 
> general assumption, and it's probably is correct for any machine,
> except for a '286.  

... or '186 or 8086.  It wouldn't be such a crime to refuse to support
silly little toy architectures, except for the fact that there are
some of us that have no choice but to work on them, and could benefit
from having a real editor.  There ARE reasonable emacs subsets, of
course, (i.e. MicroEmacs, Epsilon, etc.), so it may not be such a
terrible thing.

I saw a comment needling RMS for 'violating a primary rule of
portability', but with the x86, Intel violates common sense enough to
create far more portability issues than RMS's oversight.

							<>IHM<>