Re: documenting tramp-methods, was: Putty compatibility

2001-03-03 Thread Kai Großjohann
On Sat, 03 Mar 2001, Tom Roche wrote: > IMHO no, because options come in several different types. I > attempted to disaggregate two types: > > * Simple options, your original case. (I merely reworded your > sentence.) A simple option is one that takes no value. > > * Options that take values,

Re: documenting tramp-methods, was: Putty compatibility

2001-03-03 Thread Tom_Roche
On Thu, 01 Mar 2001, Tom Roche wrote: >> Well, that would be good to document. And also the args-value >> thing. Something like >> C-h v tramp-methods >>> * `tramp-rsh-args' This specifies the list of arguments to pass to >>> the above mentioned program. Please note that this is a list of >>>

Re: documenting tramp-methods, was: Putty compatibility

2001-03-03 Thread Kai Großjohann
On Thu, 01 Mar 2001, Tom Roche wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01 Mar 2001 23:55:50 +0100 >> You set the method parameter rcp-program. Set it to nil. Compare >> the other methods: they _either_ have rcp-program and rcp-args, >> _or_ they have encoding and decoding commands/functions, but never >> both

documenting tramp-methods, was: Putty compatibility

2001-03-01 Thread Tom_Roche
On Thu, 01 Mar 2001, Tom Roche wrote: >>> *Backtrace* (broken for mail) >>> Signaling: (error "Out of band method `t' not applicable for >>> remote shell asking for a password") >> So why does tramp think I'm using an out-of-band method? Because >> the function's name is different? [EMAIL P