On Oct 24, 6:50 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/24/07, Nils Bruin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I understand that the "bg=" hack is a quick way of getting the
> > configurability you want, but frankly, I would find it hard to explain
> > the existence of that option ind
OK. Sounds like SAGE will *NOT* be able to read your mind, then. "bg"
option added back in
(can both be used to strip "&" from and to add in "&" to the default).
Ticket reopened.
Thank you for explaining why you need the "bg" option and why the
obvious workarounds don't work in your case.
The "p
On 10/24/07, Nils Bruin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I understand that the "bg=" hack is a quick way of getting the
> configurability you want, but frankly, I would find it hard to explain
> the existence of that option independent of the very particular usage
> scenario you describe.
To you, sin
OK, so this is caused by my lack of knowledge of how emacs operates.
Really, we are talking about two editors here, one a tty-application
and the other an X-windows application. They happen to be called by
the same command invocation, so there must be something in the
environment that decides whic
On 10/22/07, Nils Bruin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> See:
>
> http://sagetrac.org/sage_trac/ticket/768
>
> I have updated the attached patch to be clean against 2.8.8.1. When I
> checked the edit() command in sage 2.8.8.1, I realized it was really
> broken -- It doesn't work if EDITOR is unset in
