[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: emacs -Q not documented
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: emacs -Q not documented |
Date: |
Sun, 03 Apr 2005 17:20:03 -0400 |
The patch is trivial, but we should probably add a long name for it.
I guess so--if we keep it. But the set of things it does is not
really coherent.
It turns off all init files; it also turns off various frame features
such as the menu bar and tool bar, it turns off tool tips,
and it selects a different type of cursor. There is nothing particularly
natural or desirable about this combination. I see no reason to have
a short option for it. Perhaps we should just remove it.
Why was -Q installed, anyway?
- 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, 2005/04/02
- 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 <=
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, Miles Bader, 2005/04/04
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, Miles Bader, 2005/04/04
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, Kim F. Storm, 2005/04/05
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, Miles Bader, 2005/04/05
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, Kim F. Storm, 2005/04/05
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, Miles Bader, 2005/04/05
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, Miles Bader, 2005/04/05
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, Kim F. Storm, 2005/04/05
Re: emacs -Q not documented, Robert J. Chassell, 2005/04/05
Re: emacs -Q not documented, David Kastrup, 2005/04/05