🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9308111804.AA04742@crystal.WonderWorks.com> kyle@crystal.WonderWorks.com (Kyle Jones) writes:
>  > Maybe a convention of writing installation programs in elisp can be
>  > started.
> 
> What kind of assumptions are you talking about?  I assume you
> targeted bug-vm with this message for a reason. :)

It's the principle of the thing, really, not any particular
assumptions.  :-) And not just for your ears.

Users do some devilishly strange things sometimes.  In the case of vm
-- it's worse with the bbdb makefile -- how can you know (or expect me
to specify) that my emacs is or isn't called "emacs", that it is or
ain't a binary rather than a shell script, that it be or be-not a
specially dumped emacs, that it has or hain't got the right
byte-compiler loaded by default, and that it is the right version?

These problems would disappear if you had a tiny bit of elisp in the
README file that loaded the right things and compiled the right files,
after asking the user whether his environment is copacetic.

Most importantly, I use emacs to ESCAPE the operating system, not to
DO BATTLE with it!  So running my emacs and doing ^X^E is better than
dry-running some silly and archaic Unix syntax.

Ad astra per emacs, so to speak.  (What was that prayer about serenity
again?  :-))