[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: emacs -Q not documented
From: |
Andreas Schwab |
Subject: |
Re: emacs -Q not documented |
Date: |
Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:15:10 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
address@hidden (Kim F. Storm) writes:
> Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Well, -Q has definitely its merits, especially for reporting bugs.
>> After seeing this discussion I still think that my `--bare' proposal
>> is not that bad: The -Q options really strips off all features you
>> would normally like to have for daily work.
>
> Yes, --bare-bones or --no-frills seem like good candidates, too.
Since the option is primarily useful for debugging maybe its name should
contain the word debug.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, address@hidden
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, (continued)
- 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, 2005/04/06
- 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 <=
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, David Kastrup, 2005/04/06
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, Stefan Monnier, 2005/04/06