[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: |
Wed, 6 Apr 2005 19:48:15 +1200 |
> The -Q option has saved me many hours debugging rediplay problems!
If Kim finds this option useful then it surely makes sense to keep it? It
presumably carries no overhead and, AFAIK, initial options aren't a limited
resource . If no-one else finds it useful, why are we arguing about adding a
long name for it?
Nick
- 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 <=
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, Richard Stallman, 2005/04/06
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, Werner LEMBERG, 2005/04/06
- 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