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: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:27:29 +0300 (IDT) Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <87vg8qisfw.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1023773433 16735 127.0.0.1 (11 Jun 2002 05:30:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 05:30:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 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 17HeEi-0004Lo-00 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 07:30:32 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17Hebt-0005I7-00 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 07:54:29 +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 17HeET-0001c0-00; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 01:30:17 -0400 Original-Received: from is.elta.co.il ([199.203.121.2]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17HeDb-0001XE-00; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 01:29:23 -0400 Original-Received: from is (is [199.203.121.2]) by is.elta.co.il (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA02986; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:27:29 +0300 (IDT) X-Sender: eliz@is Original-To: Miles Bader In-Reply-To: <87vg8qisfw.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> 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:4739 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:4739 On 11 Jun 2002, Miles Bader wrote: > > Getting rid of the header line would solve that too. Maybe getting > > rid of the header line is an improvement all around. > > No. > > Having a constant way of seeing adjacent nodes is very valuable, I > think. Yes, I agree.