From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32304 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2005 11:57:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 32296 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Nov 2005 11:57:57 -0000 Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:57:57 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-139-254.inter.net.il [84.228.139.254]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id CZS98630 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:57:53 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:50:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Andrew STUBBS CC: drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <437DB85D.3000505@st.com> (message from Andrew STUBBS on Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:17:49 +0000) Subject: Re: [PATCH] -nx-except-gdbtkinit option Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <437B5ED3.70805@st.com> <437CB049.6060304@st.com> <20051117194639.GA20312@nevyn.them.org> <437DB85D.3000505@st.com> Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00316.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:17:49 +0000 > From: Andrew STUBBS > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > .gdbtkinit is not a TCL file. It's rather more like a Microsoft .ini > file (indeed on windows it is known as gdbtk.ini). Does that format have > a name? I don't know. > > I suppose it wouldn't be impossible to screw around with the tcl to get > it to load on a command, although I don't know how right now. However, > would Insight then save the file again, as it should, as the end of the > session? Would this really make sense to a user? > > Also, this file is used to define the initial state of the GUI (which > windows are open and where and what size, as well as with what icons and > fonts). It probably doesn't make sense to open this much after startup. Would it make sense to not inhibit its loading under -nx? After all, we don't inhibit loading ~/.inputrc under -nx, right? Why should the toolkit be different? > I much prefer it the way I have done it. Of course. But you see, I don't like this new feature: I think it will add to user's confusion.