[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: emacs -Q not documented
|
From: |
Miles Bader |
|
Subject: |
Re: emacs -Q not documented |
|
Date: |
Tue, 5 Apr 2005 18:27:19 +0900 |
On Apr 5, 2005 4:31 PM, Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> 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.
-Miles
--
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
Re: emacs -Q not documented, Richard Stallman, 2005/04/04
Re: emacs -Q not documented, Robert J. Chassell, 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, Kim F. Storm, 2005/04/05
Re: emacs -Q not documented, David Kastrup, 2005/04/05