[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Introducing thread-safe Tramp
From: |
Werner LEMBERG |
Subject: |
Re: Introducing thread-safe Tramp |
Date: |
Mon, 06 Aug 2018 06:39:22 +0200 (CEST) |
> My sense is that the proposed C-x & is a prefix, because it is used before
> another key sequence. It is not an argument because it doesn't affect the
> functions' argument list the way C-u does.
>
> Maybe the term should be "prefix sequence"?
What about `multiplexer command', avoiding the perhaps misleading `prefix'
word altogether?
Werner
- RE: Introducing thread-safe Tramp, (continued)
- RE: Introducing thread-safe Tramp, Drew Adams, 2018/08/04
- Re: Introducing thread-safe Tramp, Michael Albinus, 2018/08/05
- Re: Introducing thread-safe Tramp, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/08/04
- RE: Introducing thread-safe Tramp, Drew Adams, 2018/08/04
- Re: Introducing thread-safe Tramp, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/08/04
- Re: Introducing thread-safe Tramp, Richard Stallman, 2018/08/04
- Re: Introducing thread-safe Tramp, Michael Albinus, 2018/08/05
- Re: Introducing thread-safe Tramp, Richard Stallman, 2018/08/05
- RE: Introducing thread-safe Tramp, Drew Adams, 2018/08/05
- Re: Introducing thread-safe Tramp, Howard Melman, 2018/08/06
- Re: Introducing thread-safe Tramp,
Werner LEMBERG <=
- Re: Introducing thread-safe Tramp, Michael Albinus, 2018/08/06
- Re: Introducing thread-safe Tramp, Clément Pit-Claudel, 2018/08/06
- RE: Introducing thread-safe Tramp, Drew Adams, 2018/08/06
- RE: Introducing thread-safe Tramp, Drew Adams, 2018/08/06
- Re: Introducing thread-safe Tramp, Howard Melman, 2018/08/06
- Re: Introducing thread-safe Tramp, Stefan Monnier, 2018/08/06
- Re: Introducing thread-safe Tramp, Dmitry Gutov, 2018/08/08