From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Eli Zaretskii" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: executable-find in files.el Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 09:34:31 +0300 Message-ID: <01c556bc$Blat.v2.4$cc9849e0@zahav.net.il> References: <01c55657$Blat.v2.4$7979dc20@zahav.net.il> <87fywt6128.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> <01c5567c$Blat.v2.4$d8bc9c20@zahav.net.il> <87zmv12wig.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1115880984 6468 80.91.229.2 (12 May 2005 06:56:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 06:56:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu May 12 08:56:20 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DW7bT-0005dR-2v for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 12 May 2005 08:55:27 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DW7kM-0007Rn-Bc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 12 May 2005 03:04:38 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DW7aD-00058s-SH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 May 2005 02:54:10 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DW7aB-00057m-Bs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 May 2005 02:54:07 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DW7aA-0004ue-8y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 May 2005 02:54:06 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.114.186.24] (helo=legolas.inter.net.il) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DW7R7-0004S0-1v for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 May 2005 02:44:45 -0400 Original-Received: from zaretski (IGLD-83-130-254-105.inter.net.il [83.130.254.105]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.6-GR) with ESMTP id EIW45455 (AUTH halo1); Thu, 12 May 2005 09:37:50 +0300 (IDT) Original-To: Stefan Monnier X-Mailer: emacs 22.0.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 2.4 In-reply-to: <87zmv12wig.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> (message from Stefan Monnier on Wed, 11 May 2005 19:16:46 -0400) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:37013 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:37013 > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Stefan Monnier > Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 19:16:46 -0400 > > > Yes. But since you obviously didn't read my identical comment posted > > in response to your suggestion to do what you just did in this version > > of executable-find (or perhaps you read it, but disregarded it), I > > posted the same comment again. > > Hmm... I replied to it in > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2005-05/msg00381.html but > haven't seen any answer. That's not the comment I meant. I meant what I said here: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2005-05/msg00379.html which got no responses. > Fine, but as long as noone changes call-process to do something meaningful > when requested to execute a file which is only available via > a file-name-handler, I think we should stick to 1 because I think it's more > important to match the behavior of call-process (as I wrote in the comment). I think we don't know what is more important. Software is funny: it can use the infrastructure in ways that are unimaginable when the infrastructure was written. That is why infrastructure needs to be consistent. I'm sure I'm not saying anything you didn't already know. > But, really, this is all academic anyway since I don't know of anyone who > has funny file-name-handled directories on her exec-path. That's not the only difference between openp and file-executable-p. Please compare check_executable and openp, and you will see that: . on Windows, check_executable uses stat to verify executability . on Posix systems, check_executable uses euidaccess if it's available . by contrast, openp always uses access These are subtle differences, but they are real.