Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cwjcc!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!pacbell!dsinc!syd
From: syd@dsinc.DSI.COM (Syd Weinstein)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: New Elm behavior
Message-ID: <139@dsinc.DSI.COM>
Date: 29 May 89 03:32:48 GMT
References: <137@dsinc.DSI.COM> <2662@csd4.milw.wisc.edu>
Reply-To: syd@dsinc.UUCP (Syd Weinstein)
Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc., Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
Lines: 44

First, an item of administration, John is part of the Elm Development
Group.

In article <2662@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> jgd@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (John G Dobnick,EMS E380,4142295727,) writes:
:Firstly, I now understand what we are *really* talking about.  (Thanks,
:Rob and Syd, for your messages.)  The so-called "builtin editor" is *not*
:an editor at all, but rather a "text insertion mode".  The terminology is
:confusing -- at least *I* was confused.  (I somehow got the impression that
:the "builtin editor" was a *real* editor.  Silly me.)
The built in 'editor' is really more like the mail entry mode of the
Berkeley Mail User Agent often called Mail or mailx.  If that helps
other people understand it.

:Thirdly, on the subject of whether to integrate PL 8 and live with the
:new behavior *and* be able to accept future patches, or freeze at PL 7
:and forego future fixes (an idea I don't particularly like)...   
As coordinator, I also do not like the idea of people being unable to
apply future fixes.  But also be aware, that this freeze will probably
last several weeks while this is sorted out.  After all, a concensus
on the net is never reached quickly.  I am sitting on the patch, which
was going to be part of PL9, which restores q to obeying ASK mode.
It will still be part of PL9, but when PL9 comes out is now uncertain.

:    In PL 9, "ifdef" the signature inclusion code such that a compiletime
:    parameter will select either the old or new method of inclusion.
:    Modify the "configure" script to ask which method the site prefers.
:    This will 1) allow a site to select its preference, and 2) allow
:    a site to continue to apply future patches.  
I don't really favor this one, although its not hard to do.  I think the
single signature file proposed by John is worth considering, but not
for a patch.  I feel thats a 2.3 issue.  2.2 supports multiple signature
files.

What I need to reemphasize is that there will be two solutions to this
problem.  One is a short term solution for a patch, which must effect
only a few files and be relatively small.  The second is a rewrite
of the functional specification and required code changes to make this
more rational, and perhaps simpler for 2.3.

-- 
=====================================================================
Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP                   Elm Coordinator
Datacomp Systems, Inc.				Voice: (215) 947-9900
syd@DSI.COM or {bpa,vu-vlsi}!dsinc!syd	        FAX:   (215) 938-0235