[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: emacs -Q not documented
From: |
Werner LEMBERG |
Subject: |
Re: emacs -Q not documented |
Date: |
Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:45:01 +0200 (CEST) |
> The difficulty in finding a long name for it reflected a lack of
> apparent coherence of the functionality of the option. Nobody could
> see what it was good for. That is why I thought of removing it or
> changing it.
Well, -Q has definitely its merits, especially for reporting bugs.
After seeing this discussion I still think that my `--bare' proposal
is not that bad: The -Q options really strips off all features you
would normally like to have for daily work.
Werner
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, (continued)
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, Robert J. Chassell, 2005/04/05
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, David Kastrup, 2005/04/05
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, Kim F. Storm, 2005/04/05
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, David Kastrup, 2005/04/05
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, Kim F. Storm, 2005/04/05
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, David Kastrup, 2005/04/05
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, Richard Stallman, 2005/04/05
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, Kim F. Storm, 2005/04/06
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, Nick Roberts, 2005/04/06
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, Richard Stallman, 2005/04/06
- Re: emacs -Q not documented,
Werner LEMBERG <=
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, Kim F. Storm, 2005/04/06
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, David Kastrup, 2005/04/06
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, Kim F. Storm, 2005/04/06
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, Andreas Schwab, 2005/04/06
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, David Kastrup, 2005/04/06
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, Stefan Monnier, 2005/04/06