* bug#42612: 28.0.50; Eshell: support setting working buffer like IELM
@ 2020-07-30 5:29 Sean Whitton
2020-07-30 13:15 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Sean Whitton @ 2020-07-30 5:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 42612
Hello,
Eshell's docs advertise it as a replacement for IELM, but one IELM
feature that Eshell doesn't have is an equivalent to C-c C-b, or,
ielm-change-working-buffer. It would be great to have something like
this.
--
Sean Whitton
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* bug#42612: 28.0.50; Eshell: support setting working buffer like IELM
2020-07-30 5:29 bug#42612: 28.0.50; Eshell: support setting working buffer like IELM Sean Whitton
@ 2020-07-30 13:15 ` Eli Zaretskii
2020-07-30 16:49 ` Sean Whitton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2020-07-30 13:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sean Whitton; +Cc: 42612
> From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>
> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 22:29:52 -0700
>
> Eshell's docs advertise it as a replacement for IELM, but one IELM
> feature that Eshell doesn't have is an equivalent to C-c C-b, or,
> ielm-change-working-buffer. It would be great to have something like
> this.
Like "C-u M-x eshell RET"?
If that's not what you wanted, then perhaps I don't quite understand
what you meant by running Eshell in another buffer.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* bug#42612: 28.0.50; Eshell: support setting working buffer like IELM
2020-07-30 13:15 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2020-07-30 16:49 ` Sean Whitton
2020-07-30 17:06 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Sean Whitton @ 2020-07-30 16:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: 42612
Hello Eli,
On Thu 30 Jul 2020 at 04:15PM +03, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>
>> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 22:29:52 -0700
>>
>> Eshell's docs advertise it as a replacement for IELM, but one IELM
>> feature that Eshell doesn't have is an equivalent to C-c C-b, or,
>> ielm-change-working-buffer. It would be great to have something like
>> this.
>
> Like "C-u M-x eshell RET"?
>
> If that's not what you wanted, then perhaps I don't quite understand
> what you meant by running Eshell in another buffer.
No, not what I had in mind.
In IELM you can type C-c C-b and select a buffer, and then when you eval
further sexps in *ielm*, it will be as if you used M-: with that other
buffer selected. Useful for debugging a major or minor mode.
In Eshell the closest thing you can do is wrap your sexps in a
(with-current-buffer) form, or use (progn (set-buffer ...) ...), which
is less convenient.
--
Sean Whitton
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* bug#42612: 28.0.50; Eshell: support setting working buffer like IELM
2020-07-30 16:49 ` Sean Whitton
@ 2020-07-30 17:06 ` Eli Zaretskii
2020-08-02 22:10 ` Sean Whitton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2020-07-30 17:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sean Whitton; +Cc: 42612
> From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>
> Cc: 42612@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 09:49:15 -0700
>
> In IELM you can type C-c C-b and select a buffer, and then when you eval
> further sexps in *ielm*, it will be as if you used M-: with that other
> buffer selected. Useful for debugging a major or minor mode.
>
> In Eshell the closest thing you can do is wrap your sexps in a
> (with-current-buffer) form, or use (progn (set-buffer ...) ...), which
> is less convenient.
Eshell is a shell. What is the semantics of running a shell in a
buffer? The only semantics I can think of is to run the shell in the
default-directory of that buffer.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* bug#42612: 28.0.50; Eshell: support setting working buffer like IELM
2020-07-30 17:06 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2020-08-02 22:10 ` Sean Whitton
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Sean Whitton @ 2020-08-02 22:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: 42612
Hello Eli,
On Thu 30 Jul 2020 at 08:06PM +03, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Eshell is a shell. What is the semantics of running a shell in a
> buffer? The only semantics I can think of is to run the shell in the
> default-directory of that buffer.
(info "(eshell) Top") says
[Eshell] is intended to be an alternative to the IELM REPL for Emacs
and with an interface similar to command shells ...
The functionality of setting a working buffer would be for when Eshell
is being used as an alternative to IELM, and it would have the same
semantics as the equivalent functionality in IELM.
I agree that when Eshell is being used as a command shell the only
significant thing would be default-directory.
--
Sean Whitton
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-08-02 22:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-07-30 5:29 bug#42612: 28.0.50; Eshell: support setting working buffer like IELM Sean Whitton
2020-07-30 13:15 ` Eli Zaretskii
2020-07-30 16:49 ` Sean Whitton
2020-07-30 17:06 ` Eli Zaretskii
2020-08-02 22:10 ` Sean Whitton
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).