🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> "Jamie" == Jamie Zawinski <jwz@lucid.com> writes:

Jamie> Well I'm obviously biased, but the advantages that I see over
Jamie> the FSF version are:

While most of your posting is correct, or at least a matter of taste,
there are two factual errors I'd like to correct...

Jamie>  - Any key sequence you can generate on your keyboard can be
Jamie> bound to a command using a logical and consistent interface
Jamie> that does not rely on pretending you're really dealing with 7
Jamie> bit integers.

Neither does FSF Emacs 19.  Characters are represented by 24-bit
integers, and special keys by symbols.

The event interface for Lucid and FSF are functionally equivalent, the
difference is mostly a matter of taste.  The FSF interface is slightly
more Emacs 18 compatible, and more convenient for the remap package
described below.  Undoubtly, there exist applications where the Lucid
interface is more convenient.

Jamie>  - Input and display of Latin1 chars *just works*, without any
Jamie> contortions.  (By "just works" I mean things like Isearch as
Jamie> well.)

It also *just works* in FSF Emacs 19 (including things like Isearch).

With my unbundled `remap' package it also works with Latin2, PC, Mac,
EBCDIC and about all other 8 and 7 bit character sets.  You can even
specify different character sets for the keyboard, screen, and the
buffer.  Lucid lacks many of the primitives needed for doing this.

For internationalization, FSF Emacs is currently stronger, but see
also MULE.