[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: emacs -Q not documented
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: emacs -Q not documented |
Date: |
Wed, 06 Apr 2005 09:31:56 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
>>> 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 on what they do.
I think the same should apply to command line options. Even if -Q is mostly
useful for debugging, that doesn't mean its name should mention anything
about debugging.
I think the current --bare-bones is a better name, so I think we should
close this discussion. We have better things to do.
Stefan
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, (continued)
- 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, 2005/04/06
- Re: emacs -Q not documented, David Kastrup, 2005/04/06
- Re: emacs -Q not documented,
Stefan Monnier <=