From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Patch to disable links line in *info* buffer Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:25:56 +0300 (IDT) Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <200206101015.g5AAF0A01483@aztec.santafe.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1023705058 14396 127.0.0.1 (10 Jun 2002 10:30:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:30:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: romain@orebokech.com, storm@cua.dk, emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17HMRu-0003k5-00 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 12:30:58 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17HMoh-0004oR-00 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 12:54:31 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17HMRC-0005Bo-00; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 06:30:14 -0400 Original-Received: from is.elta.co.il ([199.203.121.2]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17HMOt-0004xN-00; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 06:27:52 -0400 Original-Received: from is (is [199.203.121.2]) by is.elta.co.il (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA24494; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:25:56 +0300 (IDT) X-Sender: eliz@is Original-To: Richard Stallman In-Reply-To: <200206101015.g5AAF0A01483@aztec.santafe.edu> Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:4693 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:4693 On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Richard Stallman wrote: > Someone else wrote: (That was me.) > It looks like a display bug when you first see it: two identical lines, > one below the other. > > If the text put in the header line were changed so it would > not look like the line in the buffer, would that solve the problem? It depends on how do we change the header line. Given that both lines use the same text, there aren't too many degrees of freedom here, I'm afraid.