From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Juanma Barranquero" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: EmacsW32 invocation options Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 17:01:01 +0200 Message-ID: References: <59osrdF2m97hgU1@mid.individual.net> <4637A396.9000300@gmail.com> <46383B57.6050508@gmail.com> <463891EE.60804@gmail.com> <4638A23F.9060504@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1178118116 25054 80.91.229.12 (2 May 2007 15:01:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 15:01:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org To: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 02 17:01:54 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HjGL3-0005fu-3H for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 17:01:53 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjGRS-0006RI-QY for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 11:08:30 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HjGQi-0005wv-D7 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 11:07:44 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HjGQg-0005vw-Mn for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 11:07:44 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjGQg-0005vm-HA for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 11:07:42 -0400 Original-Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.237]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HjGKG-0003wt-00 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 11:01:04 -0400 Original-Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i23so171791wra for ; Wed, 02 May 2007 08:01:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=BTvSJCCKuKU8C5RyhhEl1kkPNbCu9745MTU/5DVYGGFcPZduUvtxly1e4ktX+UKxm63hngzR1rDtmXi/IrywWj2JhQO8OWmClnQWPP0smCgNUe4Uig4yXPYslS9OQWR+VQ/jyoA9Ookm02FGpbXHnkxivu4hyuaDYXiRIcmJWxM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=nQQBOBpjnLkIDoU8Ml8pdxfg2LZsKLaz+ju5npiPF+ZEDLQ7zbEFhY8KMRBC2UiY0WVVQPTOpNajYbdOXTTaX9Q+xlHpmjI/XVSF8mOOoyNGSqPQYLlrYMj0a29uBAZuWM6efBnLAORFieYFVLJW2xDLo1yyPg2nbVSVFaSTrxc= Original-Received: by 10.90.113.20 with SMTP id l20mr495572agc.1178118061226; Wed, 02 May 2007 08:01:01 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.90.87.8 with HTTP; Wed, 2 May 2007 08:01:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4638A23F.9060504@gmail.com> Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 (Google crawlbot) X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:43507 Archived-At: On 5/2/07, Lennart Borgman (gmail) wrote: > I am sorry if I gave the impression that you and others did not take > part at all. But when I finally gave Emacs client a (logical) structure > that seemed relevant to me I did not get feedback on that. You *did* get feedback. Some of that feedback said: "it is too late". Some was "I don't agree with your (logical) structure, I think we should discuss it a little more". Some of it said "the implementation is confusing". There was also "it's not that big of an issue, and we don't want to further delay the issue". Some feedback was silence (and then Warnock's dilemma apply). Some feedback was positive. You seem to talk of non-positive feedback as "no feedback". > And I really > tested different possibilities a lot. I *know* you invested a lot of effort. Why should that mean that the answer reached is optimal, or even good? > You must be misunderstanding something very much. Yes, I'm "misunderstanding" your comment: "I really tried to open a discussion about it, but I did not get much company." > There were a lot of such reports before people realized that they did > not had to start the server in .emacs. Then you agree with me: there were bug reports. Juanma