From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lennart Borgman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Patch to allow -nw to runemacs on w32 Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:34:20 +0100 Message-ID: <455B337C.60502@student.lu.se> References: <455B19B9.9000004@student.lu.se> <455B3098.4010307@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1163604927 6763 80.91.229.2 (15 Nov 2006 15:35:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:35:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs Devel Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 15 16:35:26 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GkMnD-0000ZR-VR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:35:16 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GkMnC-0000aS-SO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:35:14 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GkMmf-0000Dg-95 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:34:41 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GkMma-00008X-7v for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:34:40 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GkMmZ-00007j-BQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:34:35 -0500 Original-Received: from [80.76.149.212] (helo=ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1GkMmR-00030M-Bj; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:34:28 -0500 Original-Received: from [83.254.145.24] (port=62079 helo=[192.168.123.121]) by ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GkMmM-0008Dh-4X; Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:34:25 +0100 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025) Original-To: Jason Rumney In-Reply-To: <455B3098.4010307@gnu.org> X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1GkMmM-0008Dh-4X. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net 1GkMmM-0008Dh-4X a955e17e57d8d3b941c39f67c311fb2e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:62337 Archived-At: Jason Rumney wrote: > Lennart Borgman wrote: >> In some situations you may want to be able to use the -nw option with >> runemacs.exe. All other options to emacs can be given to runemacs, >> but -nw currently gives a fatal error. The attached patch fixes this. > > I don't see any error, OTOH, it launches emacs in a hidden console > that you cannot get at, so isn't much use. > > I don't see any reason why someone would want to use runemacs to > launch emacs -nw, since the sole purpose of runemacs is to suppress > the console window when launching emacs from an icon on Windows, so I > don't think this needs fixing urgently. If we are going to fix this > though, it would be better if emacs was run in the same console window > rather than launching another one, as the latter may not be an option > if the user is using telnet/ssh, or a full screen command prompt. Also > we need to handle --no-window-system and the case where no GUI is > available as well as -nw. I get a fatal error, not just a hidden window. I think we should avoid the fatal error since the cost is low (just this little patch). It sounds elegant to use the same console window if possible, but can we get that? The code already handles --no-window-system. Does runemacs run at all without a GUI system? Are situations where this occurs perhaps situations where it seems right to assume that the user is knowledgeable enough to just use emacs.exe instead? The reason I looked into this was actually your little program to run emacsclient or emacs depending on if emacs server was available or not.