Re: [h-e-w] gnuserv maintenance

[Jason Rumney]

David Vanderschel wrote:

> > You explain how arguments don't work in shortcuts,
> > but can you or anyone else explain why -q behaviour
> > is neccesary for shortcuts?
> >    
I just tried testing this by creating a Shortcut to "gnuclient.exe" -q.  
At least on Windows 2000, this works, and I have recollections of doing 
this on Windows 95 many years ago before gnuclientw was thought up.

> Without the -q, emacs produces the message, "When done
> with a buffer, type C-x #.", which is how you can
> explicitly release the buffer for gnuclient's sake.
> It seems to me that the message about the C-x #
> command would be meaningless and confusing for a drag
> and drop on an emacs shortcut.
Perhaps, but if that is the only reason not to change things, then I 
think it is less annoying than the problem of programs that doo need to 
wait not working with the current implementation unless you use the 
version of gnuclient that produces an ugly and useless DOS window.

> Furthermore, there is
> no need to have the DOS window for the corresponding
> instance of gnuclient lying about - possibly
> indefinitely if the buffer is never released (and
> there is no a priori reason to expect that it should
> be released in this case).
>  
There is no DOS window with gnuclientw. This is the reason it exists.