From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Chong Yidong Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#8149: 23.2; Docs: "in a separate process" Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2011 15:46:26 -0500 Message-ID: <87vczxfg7x.fsf@stupidchicken.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1299362840 12826 80.91.229.12 (5 Mar 2011 22:07:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 22:07:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Dave Abrahams , 8149@debbugs.gnu.org To: Glenn Morris Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 05 23:07:13 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pvzd0-0007Nx-Q0 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2011 23:07:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40030 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pvzcz-0002KW-Pu for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2011 17:07:09 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=43443 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pvzcr-0002JH-VI for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2011 17:07:03 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pvzcr-00051y-3g for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2011 17:07:01 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:60814) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pvzcr-00051s-1n for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2011 17:07:01 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PvzY1-00086q-Mo; Sat, 05 Mar 2011 17:02:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Chong Yidong Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2011 22:02:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 8149 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 8149-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B8149.129936248931132 (code B ref 8149); Sat, 05 Mar 2011 22:02:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 8149) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Mar 2011 22:01:29 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PvzXU-000865-Up for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2011 17:01:29 -0500 Original-Received: from vm-emlprdomr-04.its.yale.edu ([130.132.50.145]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PvzXT-00085t-Aq for 8149@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2011 17:01:27 -0500 Original-Received: from furball (c-71-192-165-84.hsd1.ct.comcast.net [71.192.165.84]) (authenticated bits=0) by vm-emlprdomr-04.its.yale.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p25M1JlF016172 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 5 Mar 2011 17:01:20 -0500 Original-Received: by furball (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9C914160796; Sat, 5 Mar 2011 15:46:26 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Glenn Morris's message of "Tue, 01 Mar 2011 21:58:32 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on 130.132.50.145 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2011 17:02:01 -0500 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:44664 Archived-At: Glenn Morris writes: > I'm not sure there is any special significance to the "separate process" > thing, it might just be a turn of phrase that was copied from some > original description as more of these call-process etc functions were > added. I've tweaked the places that use this phrase to make it clearer.