Re: Patch to allow -nw to runemacs on w32

[Lennart Borgman]

Juanma Barranquero wrote:
> > You are right. I also just get a hidden emacs.exe if I add -Q.
> Though I
> > would not say a sometimes hidden, sometimes crashing emacs is very 
> > good ;-)
>
> Hmm, I don't remember saying anything about -Q. runemacs does not
> crash for me with -nw; it just runs hidden.

No you did not. I just wanted to say it seems to be something in my 
startup files.

> > And at a second thought it seems natural that runemacs creates a new
> > window - even if it is a console window. That is what runemacs is for,
> > isn't it?
>
> No. Its only purpose is running Emacs *without* a console window. It
> says it so in the comment at the very beginning:

Oh, I did not read that. But what it does from a user perspective is to 
create a new visible window running Emacs. It would not be any big 
surprise if it did the same with a console window in my opinion.

> The other arguments are not for Emacs. It does not know what to do
> with "-high", "-low" or "-wait"; so runemacs processes the argument
> and skips it. But -nw is to be understood both by runemacs (if your
> patch applies) and Emacs, so processing it only if it's the first is a
> no-no (or you'd have to document it).

Yes, that is right. But it is quite normal for the options to come 
first. See for example grep:

    Usage: grep [OPTION]... PATTERN [FILE] ...

I think most users will put the options first even if emacs does not 
require it.

> Yeah. As H. L. Mencken said: "For every problem, there is a solution
> that is simple, neat, and wrong." :) 

I believe that is a surprisingly simple, net and right solution to 
something.