Furthermore, it means you cannot just put a breakpoint on (or anywhere
inside) redisplay_internal and then execute some code to generate a
specific error... The blinking cursor timer will trigger that
breakpoint every second, making it practically impossible to
debug such probl
>>> 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.
> -debug-setup
My experience when programming is that functions shouldn't be named based on
what they're used for, but based o
Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kim F. Storm) writes:
>
>> Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 b
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --bare-bones seems ok.
I have installed --bare-bones as an alias for -Q.
Case closed, I hope :-)
--
Kim F. Storm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.cua.dk
___
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kim F. Storm) writes:
> Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 yo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kim F. Storm) writes:
> Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 yo
Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
> The difficulty in finding a long name for it reflected a lack of
> apparent coherence of the functionality of the option. Nobody could
> see what it was good for. That is why I thought of removing it or
> changing it.
Well, -Q has definitely its merits, especially for reporting bugs.
After se
> 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
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is intended to be an option turn off all "extra features".
>
> On what criterion are these features "extra"?
They are various "decorations" to the basic Emacs frame or
functionality.
Turning them off, skips over a fairly big (and complex) p
It is intended to be an option turn off all "extra features".
On what criterion are these features "extra"?
But most important, running emacs -Q when debugging redisplay problems
makes it much easier to know what's going on.
Why does the blinking cursor relate to this?
Just beca
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --stripped-down
--naked :-)
--
Kim F. Storm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.cua.dk
___
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kim F. Storm) writes:
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> --stripped-down
>
> --naked :-)
Too close to --flashing.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
htt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kim F. Storm) writes:
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> --basic-defaults
>>
>> would be another possibility.
>
> Still, "defaults" is non-informative in this context.
>
> IMO --minimal would be good, but is too close to --minimize.
>
> Some synonymes are:
>
> --ba
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --basic-defaults
>
> would be another possibility.
Still, "defaults" is non-informative in this context.
IMO --minimal would be good, but is too close to --minimize.
Some synonymes are:
--basic
--slim
--mean
--reduced
--nominal
--
Kim F. Storm <[EM
"Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> -Q
>
>It is intended to be an option turn off all "extra features".
>
> Yes. The option is helpful and should be kept.
>
> It is easier than evoking Emacs with an equivalent long string of
> options, which are:
>
> emacs -q
> -Q
It is intended to be an option turn off all "extra features".
Yes. The option is helpful and should be kept.
It is easier than evoking Emacs with an equivalent long string of
options, which are:
emacs -q \
--no-site-file \
--no-blinking-cursor \
--
Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Apr 5, 2005 7:27 PM, Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>emacs -Q -N
>>
>> where -Q means "no init files or site-init files"
>> and -N means turn off all frame features
>
> I should add that doing so is more flexible for debugging too -- for
>
On Apr 5, 2005 7:27 PM, Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>emacs -Q -N
>
> where -Q means "no init files or site-init files"
> and -N means turn off all frame features
I should add that doing so is more flexible for debugging too -- for
instance, for reporting a bug with menus, you don't
On Apr 5, 2005 7:04 PM, Kim F. Storm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There seems no reason not to split it into a couple of more coherent
> > options though.
>
> So instead of "emacs -Q" I have to ask a user to please try
> "emacs -q -A -T --no-bla-bla -V --no-blinking-cursor"
That's a strawman.
Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Apr 5, 2005 4:31 PM, Kim F. Storm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Just because we cannot find a long name for it -- that's silly, IMO!
>> Please keep the option. It serves the purpose it was added for very
>> well!!
>
> There seems no reason not to split
On Apr 5, 2005 4:31 PM, Kim F. Storm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just because we cannot find a long name for it -- that's silly, IMO!
> Please keep the option. It serves the purpose it was added for very
> well!!
There seems no reason not to split it into a couple of more coherent
options though
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 me
On Apr 4, 2005 6:20 AM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
On Apr 4, 2005 6:20 AM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 t
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 select
> > How about `--default-settings' (which could be abbreviated
> > `--default'; perhaps it ought to also accept the plural of that,
> > `--defaults', without actually putting it in the option help)?
>
> I think that would be very confusing -- -Q actually turns off some of
> the default featu
On Apr 3, 2005 8:21 AM, Henrik Enberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > `--minimal-defaults' ?
>
> How about just `--minimal'? Should be fairly self-explanatory.
I think it's somewhat misleading --
-Q apparently does _two_ things: (1) it ignores all customizations,
and (2) uses `minimal settings'
Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Apr 3, 2005 7:52 AM, Kim F. Storm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think that would be very confusing -- -Q actually turns off some of
>> the default features such as splash screen, toolbar, menubar, scroll
>> bars etc.
>>
>> --no-nothing :-)
>
> `--mi
On Apr 3, 2005 7:52 AM, Kim F. Storm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that would be very confusing -- -Q actually turns off some of
> the default features such as splash screen, toolbar, menubar, scroll
> bars etc.
>
> --no-nothing :-)
`--minimal-defaults' ?
-Miles
--
Do not taunt Happy Fu
Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about `--default-settings' (which could be abbreviated
> `--default'; perhaps it ought to also accept the plural of that,
> `--defaults', without actually putting it in the option help)?
Since the settings are _not_ the defaults (for example, blink-cu
Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about `--default-settings' (which could be abbreviated
> `--default'; perhaps it ought to also accept the plural of that,
> `--defaults', without actually putting it in the option help)?
I think that would be very confusing -- -Q actually turns off so
On Apr 2, 2005 8:02 PM, Nick Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think these are explanatory.
>
> If we can't think of a suitable name why should we add one?
Well obviously if we can't think of a good name, we shouldn't add a
bad one :-), but long option names, if well-chosen, are often
> >> 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 --
Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 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'?
How about --plain or --vanilla?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15,
> 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'?
Werner
___
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.g
[emacs 2005-03-29]
Option `-Q' isn't documented in emacs --help.
Werner
___
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
37 matches
Mail list logo
