[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lost argument and doc string
From: |
Tak Ota |
Subject: |
Re: lost argument and doc string |
Date: |
Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:36:45 -0800 (PST) |
Fri, 15 Feb 2002 03:36:33 -0700 (MST): Richard Stallman <address@hidden> wrote:
> What is the reason for proposing these changes?
> What problem are you trying to solve?
> Is there no simpler solution?
The reason was to recover the lost arguments and doc string on NT
platform. However I have withdrawn the proposal. I now think the
Makefile should be corrected instead of make-docfile.c.
> A major change in make-docfile has substantial costs, but it won't
> benefit users. So if it isn't necessary, we shouldn't do it.
I completely agree with you that we shouldn't do it. Sorry for the
confusion.
-Tak
- Re: lost argument and doc string, (continued)
- Re: lost argument and doc string, Tak Ota, 2002/02/12
- Re: lost argument and doc string, Eli Zaretskii, 2002/02/13
- Re: lost argument and doc string, Tak Ota, 2002/02/13
- Re: lost argument and doc string, Andreas Schwab, 2002/02/13
- Re: lost argument and doc string, Eli Zaretskii, 2002/02/13
- Re: lost argument and doc string, Jason Rumney, 2002/02/13
- Re: lost argument and doc string, Tak Ota, 2002/02/13
- Re: lost argument and doc string, Jason Rumney, 2002/02/13
- Re: lost argument and doc string, Tak Ota, 2002/02/14
- Re: lost argument and doc string, Richard Stallman, 2002/02/15
- Re: lost argument and doc string,
Tak Ota <=
- Re: lost argument and doc string, Tak Ota, 2002/02/13
- Re: lost argument and doc string, Richard Stallman, 2002/02/13
- Re: lost argument and doc string, Tak Ota, 2002/02/14
- Re: lost argument and doc string, Richard Stallman, 2002/02/13
- Re: lost argument and doc string, Richard Stallman, 2002/02/11