From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-Id: <200406210854.i5L8s5Y01166@zamenhof.cs.utwente.nl>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] new code in cvs for plan9ports; not in web tarball
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:14:54 -0400."
	<ee9e417a0406201514f40a0ce@mail.gmail.com> 
References: <ee9e417a040620094573f6f12c@mail.gmail.com>
	<200406201908.i5KJ8hn26197@zamenhof.cs.utwente.nl>
	<ee9e417a0406201514f40a0ce@mail.gmail.com> 
From: Axel Belinfante <Axel.Belinfante@cs.utwente.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1164.1087808045.1@zamenhof.cs.utwente.nl>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:54:05 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: a8698d44-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

I asked:
> > Just a thought: would it make sense to also support
> > (for a more 'seamless' integration in the X11 world)
> > some of the common X11 command line options, like
> >  -display and -geometry or would the multi-character
> > nature of them completely 'conflict' with the plan 9
> > way of doing things?
> > (I can understand arguments pro and contra, I just
> >  thought it could be nice to raise the issue, once)
> 
> these options are fundamentally at odds with the
> plan 9 way of parsing options.  

ok. I already thought so. thanks for replying.

Axel.