On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 23:13:11 -0500, Nick Dokos <nicholas.do...@hp.com> wrote: > Not worth the bother IMO[fn:1], but if you wish to implement it and submit > a patch, I'd be happy to review it. > > Nick > > Footnotes: > > [fn:1] Remember, capture is supposed to be as unobtrusive as possible: > you just want to squirrel away something for future > reference. Bells and whistles (which, IMO, this change would be) > are not the point: you want to get in, record the data and get > out and back to work as fast as possible. Popping up frames slows > things down but more importantly jolts you away from what you > were doing. At least, it would me (I think): that's why I don't > think it's worth it, but you may very well disagree.
It isn't worth *if* capture is invoked from emacs. If capture is invoked from org-protocol in firefox, then there might not even be a emacs frame visible. 1) If I don't pass -c to emacsclient, then I need to search all my workspaces to find where emacs decided to put the capture frame 2) If I pass do pass -c to emacsclient, then I need to close the frame afterwards. And more significantly, I need to close the empty frame when I use store-link instead. (I could work around this by using seperate protocols for for each) Tom
