[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: emacs -Q not documented
From: |
Nick Roberts |
Subject: |
Re: emacs -Q not documented |
Date: |
Sat, 2 Apr 2005 23:02:41 +1200 |
> >> Option `-Q' isn't documented in emacs --help.
> >>
> >> Would you like to fix that?
> >
> > The patch is trivial, but we should probably add a long name for it.
> > What about `--bare'?
This would be confusing because a 'bare Emacs' means something else.
> How about --plain or --vanilla?
I don't think these are explanatory.
If we can't think of a suitable name why should we add one?
Nick
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, Werner LEMBERG, 2005/04/02
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, David Kastrup, 2005/04/02
- Re: emacs -Q not documented,
Nick Roberts <=
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, Miles Bader, 2005/04/02
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, Kim F. Storm, 2005/04/02
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, Miles Bader, 2005/04/02
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, Henrik Enberg, 2005/04/02
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, Miles Bader, 2005/04/02
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, Nick Roberts, 2005/04/02
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, David Kastrup, 2005/04/02
Re: emacs -Q not documented, Richard Stallman, 2005/04/04