On 2017-02-10 11:58, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Cc: 25671@debbugs.gnu.org >> From: Clément Pit--Claudel >> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:45:55 -0500 >> >>>>> I believe changing the program behavior depending on how it was named >>>>> in the command that invoked it is against GNU coding standards. >>>> >>>> What about providing elisp or emacs-script as a separate binary? >>> >>> What about it? >> >> Would that be OK? Could it work? > > Yes, it will. Although distributing two large binaries might be > overkill. (All that just to make shell scripts slightly simpler?) Right; that's why I thought the "two possible names for the same binary" approach was nice :/ It would make it possible to run elisp command line programs in Windows without a batch script wrapper, and it would make these scripts nicer in GNU/Linux and macOS. But arguably that's still a limited benefit. If there's no way to reuse the Emacs binary (that is, if there's no way to make "elisp" just be a wrapper around "emacs"), then I think we should close this issue. Cheers, Clément.