[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: C-x v g going further back in time?
|
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
|
Subject: |
Re: C-x v g going further back in time? |
|
Date: |
Mon, 26 Jan 2004 18:33:01 GMT |
|
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 |
> 'C-x o', 'L' path. But I think if they invoke 'C-x v l' directly,
> though, they should get the latest info always, otherwise they might
I'm not convinced it's very important. So if it turns out to be a problem,
it might be OK to skip this part of the requirement.
Stefan
- C-x v g going further back in time?, Benjamin Rutt, 2004/01/08
- Re: C-x v g going further back in time?, Andrew Taylor, 2004/01/08
- Re: C-x v g going further back in time?, Benjamin Rutt, 2004/01/08
- Re: C-x v g going further back in time?, Stefan Monnier, 2004/01/08
- Re: C-x v g going further back in time?, Benjamin Rutt, 2004/01/20
- Re: C-x v g going further back in time?, Stefan Monnier, 2004/01/20
- Re: C-x v g going further back in time?, Benjamin Rutt, 2004/01/25
- Re: C-x v g going further back in time?, Stefan Monnier, 2004/01/26
- Re: C-x v g going further back in time?, Benjamin Rutt, 2004/01/26
- Re: C-x v g going further back in time?, Stefan Monnier, 2004/01/26
- Re: C-x v g going further back in time?,
Stefan Monnier <=
Re: C-x v g going further back in time?, Benjamin Rutt, 2004/01/11