Article View: gnu.epoch.misc
Article #1094Re: save the separate minibuffer! (not!)
From: Jamie Zawinski
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 19:29
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 19:29
16 lines
1506 bytes
1506 bytes
In gnu.epoch.misc Shankar Unni <shankar@sgi.com> wrote: > > Being one of the original people who pestered Jamie about > detached-minibuffer, I'll add my plea to Jamie : please don't rip it out. > Leave the code in. When I get a little time (soon, I hope), I might even > take a crack at making it work. Just to be clear, I have no problem with leaving support for the detached minibuffer in; but it doesn't work right now, and I don't see it as being all that valuable compared to the other stuff that still needs to be done, so fixing it is going to be way down on my list. I gather that Simon and Chuck feel the same way. This public outcry we're seeing may change their minds, but of course, doing it yourself will always be the best way of making sure it gets done! -- Jamie
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<JWZ.93Feb27112858@thalidomide.lucid.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!lucid.com!karoshi!jwzReferences:
<9302262151.AA00473@banach.math.ep.utexas.edu> <1mmidqINNs22@fido.asd.sgi.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fc7ee,6e300946f9a3edb7 X-Google-Attributes: gidfc7ee,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-02-27 11:29:00 PST Newsgroups: gnu.epoch.misc Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!lucid.com!karoshi!jwz From: Jamie Zawinski <jwz@lucid.com> Subject: Re: save the separate minibuffer! (not!) In-Reply-To: shankar@sgi.com's message of 27 Feb 1993 02:07:54 GMT Message-ID: <JWZ.93Feb27112858@thalidomide.lucid.com> Lines: 16 Sender: usenet@lucid.com Organization: Lucid, Inc., Menlo Park, CA References: <9302262151.AA00473@banach.math.ep.utexas.edu> <1mmidqINNs22@fido.asd.sgi.com> X-Windows: More than enough rope. Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 19:29:00 GMT