> Can I get a reply to this, please? I don't want to assume that you're not
> doing this and then find out that it is in fact done.
It's on my TODO list,
Stefan
> Any news on this? Will you be allowing different debugger quit
> behaviors? Will you, for example, use a user option (funcall
> 'debugger-quit-function) in place of (bury-buffer)? I would
> prefer `quit-window' for such a function and you would prefer
> `bury-buffer' - a user option would satisfy everyone.
> Please let me know, so I'll know whether or not to do this in
> my local code.
> Thanks.
> From: Drew Adams
> OK. Are you saying that it will remain as is (iconifies on
> exit), or will you try to somehow allow for different
> behaviors: iconify, delete frame, leave frame displayed?
> If this is the way it will be, then I'll adapt locally; if you
> will change things, then I'll wait - I just want to know.
> From: Drew Adams
>> provide some way for users to get a different behavior
>> from `q' and `c' at top level, besides iconifying?
_______________________________________________
Emacs-pretest-bug mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
