On Fri, Feb 22 2013, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> This is first year programmer stuff.
>
> That was a nasty thing to say.  It is uncalled for, because none of
> the responses so far was either ad-hominem or disrespectful.

Eli, I'm sorry I got frustrated, but really, your responses have been
dismissive and unthoughtful.  Instead of explaining or discussing the
technical issues, you keep questioning why I would want to do this.
I've explained three times now, very clearly.  Please don't ask why I
would care about doing this again.

> The real reason is explained in the ELisp manual:
>
>      It is impossible to separate the standard output and standard error
>   streams of the subprocess, because Emacs normally spawns the subprocess
>   inside a pseudo-TTY, and a pseudo-TTY has only one output channel.  If
>   you want to keep the output to those streams separate, you should
>   redirect one of them to a file--for example, by using an appropriate
>   shell command.

I don't believe this at all.  Obviously the command can separate stdout
From stderr or it wouldn't be able to capture stdout to a buffer and
separately redirect stderr to a file.

Come on, guys.  Let's have a serious discussion here.  No more smoke
blowing.

jamie.