[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: emacs -Q not documented
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
Re: emacs -Q not documented |
Date: |
Tue, 5 Apr 2005 07:13:52 +0900 |
On Apr 4, 2005 6:20 AM, Richard Stallman <address@hidden> wrote:
> Why was -Q installed, anyway?
I seem to recall it was intended for some debugging scenario (e.g.
turning off lots of features helps simplify things).
I agree it's overly weird. The "no init files" functionality is very
useful though, and naturally maps to -Q (by analogy with -q). Maybe
if those other features are useful they could be triggered by a
separate option; specifying two short options is not much harder than
one.
-Miles
--
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, (continued)
- 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, 2005/04/04
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, Miles Bader, 2005/04/04
- Re: emacs -Q not documented,
Miles Bader <=
- 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
Re: emacs -Q not documented, Kim F. Storm, 2005/04/05
Re: emacs -Q not documented, David Kastrup, 2005/04/05