From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#10107: 23.2; Add command gud-quit Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2021 14:34:49 +0300 Message-ID: <83eedcfv3a.fsf@gnu.org> References: <8762icpcus.fsf@linux-4qi7.site> <1706399.zsAvlgfHB3@localhost.localdomain> <87k0n7uzcz.fsf@gnus.org> <2011306.fv05nxKMY0@localhost.localdomain> <87lf7nqhrk.fsf@gnus.org> <834kebi1y4.fsf@gnu.org> <87h7ibqh36.fsf@gnus.org> <8335tvi1fa.fsf@gnu.org> <87sg1sofyt.fsf@gnus.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="28757"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 10107@debbugs.gnu.org, giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Jun 08 13:48:56 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lqaE4-0007EB-U5 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 13:48:56 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45236 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lqaE3-0003ck-Co for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 07:48:55 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46320) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lqa1a-0000zk-Q5 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 07:36:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:46017) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lqa1a-00078S-Hk for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 07:36:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lqa1a-0004BB-DP for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 07:36:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2021 11:36:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 10107 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: moreinfo Original-Received: via spool by 10107-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B10107.162315213716034 (code B ref 10107); Tue, 08 Jun 2021 11:36:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 10107) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Jun 2021 11:35:37 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57563 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lqa17-0004AU-2F for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 07:35:37 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:52608) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lqa12-0004AD-8U for 10107@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 07:35:32 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:58802) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lqa0r-0006Ua-H9; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 07:35:19 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:3530 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lqa0g-0003Uk-2y; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 07:35:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87sg1sofyt.fsf@gnus.org> (message from Lars Ingebrigtsen on Tue, 08 Jun 2021 11:36:42 +0200) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:208223 Archived-At: > From: Lars Ingebrigtsen > Cc: giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl, 10107@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2021 11:36:42 +0200 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> delete-process is more general (works on all process-like things) and > >> therefore seems more useful as a user-level command. > > > > But the OP wanted to kill only real subprocesses, no? > > The OP only wanted a command for gud buffers, but I think that if we > want to have a command here, we should make it generally useful. And > I don't see any downsides to using delete-process instead of > kill-process here, but perhaps I'm overlooking something? If we want a general-purpose command to kill a subprocess, we already have Proced. Do we really need yet another way? I thought the issue was with killing a runaway process in GUD, which is a specialized situation which I can sympathize (having myself been in that situation once or twice...)