On 23/09/2007, Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Sunday 23 September 2007, Jonathan Underwood wrote: > > On 22/09/2007, Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Saturday 22 September 2007, Marcin Zajączkowski wrote: > > > > Ville Skyttä wrote: > > > > > > > > Does emacs graphical interface (doesn't need a console)? > > > > > > Yes. It also starts faster than XEmacs and integrates better with the > > > desktop (at least look and feel wise) so I suggest trying it before > > > XEmacs in the script. > > > > Also - if you're starting Emacs, you should consider calling > > emacsclient -a emacs <foo> which uses an existing Emacs if one is > > running with emacsserver running, or starts emacs if not. > > The confusing thing about that is that it'll not only reuse a running emacs, > it'll reuse an existing window too, pushing its current buffer out of view to > the buffer list (Where did my existing open Emacs and its buffer go?). And > if only one window was active, carelessly closing the window will kill all > the buffers active in it, possibly resulting in data loss. > > Granted, maybe people who do activate the server (which needs to be explicitly > done) are aware of this, but even then I'm not sure if it'd be a good thing > to do by default. If emacsclient would open a new frame for each new file, > the problem would be much less severe IMO. If the opening is done with a > shell script, people can use shell aliases to get emacsclient stuff > transparently done the way they prefer. Yes, good points, and in light of the last point, i agree. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
