----- Original Message ----- > From: "Drew Adams" <drew.ad...@oracle.com>
> > If your code can be run after unpacking a standard nightly > > build on a fresh machine and it finishes setting up Emacs, > > I bet a lot of people would use it. For me at least, that > > integration was the biggest draw of W32Emacs over stock. > > FWIW, that messing with the registry etc. is a main reason that I > would *not* use EmacsW32. Fair enough. Different strokes for different folks. > What's the big deal about creating a shortcut? Why is that harder > than running > some "installer"? I find unzipping and (optionally) creating a > shortcut sans effort and sans surprises - painless. Because the installer is one-click (well not really but you don't have anything to remember) and then you're up and running. I admit the shortcut thing should not irk me as much as it does, but there are too many options for me to always remember, and at least in the old days, it was hard to get exactly right and -a didn't work so you had to write a little .bat file and use that. Maybe that's all behind us now. Partly it's because I'm an old-school Linux guy and all this emacs vs. runemacs and emacsclient vs. emacsclientw stuff isn't burned into my brain enough to remember when I'm setting up a new system. I admit that although I've been using Emacs since 1982, submitted patches, and written thousands of lines of elisp, I'm at the point now where I just want it to work without fuss on a new machine - my focus is elsewhere. Guess I'm getting lazy. :-) How about if Emacs shipped with a bin/EmacsClient.lnk shortcut with the right options already in it? Hmm, don't think that would work -- .lnk files have the install dir baked into them. Or maybe addpm.exe could create it. -- Gary Oberbrunner
