[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: emacs -Q not documented
From: |
Kim F. Storm |
Subject: |
Re: emacs -Q not documented |
Date: |
Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:28:28 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
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.
--
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, (continued)
- 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, 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 <=
- 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