Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Jim Meyering <j...@meyering.net> >> Cc: ebl...@redhat.com, egg...@cs.ucla.edu, bug-gnulib@gnu.org, >> c...@stupidchicken.com, emacs-de...@gnu.org, >> monn...@iro.umontreal.ca, br...@clisp.org >> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:59:18 +0100 >> >> Requiring doslfn solely for those *building* emacs on DOS would >> allow the names of all C source and other build-only files to be "long". >> To gain that benefit, users would *not* have to install doslfn. >> >> However, to extend that benefit to files loaded by emacs >> at run time, they would. > > There's no reason to believe that file-name conflicts will be limited > to C files only.
No one who has followed this thread could think that. The point is that we do gain some benefit, even if we can assume use of doslfn only for the build process. Obviously, it would be better to be able to assume a reasonable file system model for run-time, too. > C files in Emacs are added very infrequently, while > Lisp files much more frequently. With gnulib, it is easy to add many (via dependencies), at least initially.
