Hi! > Can you change the frame title by doing (setq > frame-title-format ...) on Windows emacs normally?
Just to let you know, I am using Windows Emacs 23.2.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.2.3790) I tried: (setq-frame-title-format "This is a test.") in the *scratch* window and got: Debugger entered--Lisp error: (void-function setq-frame-title-format) (setq-frame-title-format "This is a test.") eval((setq-frame-title-format "This is a test.")) eval-last-sexp-1(t) eval-last-sexp(t) eval-print-last-sexp() call-interactively(eval-print-last-sexp nil nil) I'm a little behind the current Emacs, but not that much. However, I have noticed other frame and window manipulation functions that are available on UNIX, but not Windows. Hope this helps! _______________________________________________________________________________ Jos'h Fuller, Production Programmer Arc Productions Ltd. p: 416.682.5237 | f: 416.682.5209 | http://www.arcproductions.com 230 Richmond Street East | Toronto, ON M5A 1P4 | > -----Original Message----- > From: emacs-orgmode-bounces+jos'h.fuller=arcproductions....@gnu.org > [mailto:emacs-orgmode-bounces+jos'h.fuller=arcproductions....@gnu.org] > On Behalf Of George Kettleborough > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 1:01 PM > To: Bernt Hansen > Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org > Subject: Re: [O] [PATCH] Option for clock and timer to be displayed in > frame-title > > Hi Bernt, > > On Tue, Mar 06 2012, Bernt Hansen wrote: > > I tried this patch at work and it hangs my Emacs session in Windows > on > > startup. It's totally unresponsive and I have to kill the process > with > > the task manager. > > > > I think there's an implementation problem here but I don't have any > > other useful information about what it might be. > > Thanks for testing the patch. That's quite alarming and I have no idea > why this would happen. Can you change the frame title by doing (setq > frame-title-format ...) on Windows emacs normally? I don't currently > have any Windows boxen to test this on unfortunately. > > Also, what emacs version are you running? > > Thanks, > > George.
