Re: M-x compile for different file extensions

["Ehud Karni" <ehud@unix.mvs.co.il>]

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 12:59:39 -0400, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> The debugging feature could make sense, but why isn't `make -k' a good
> default regardless of the kind of file?  In other words, why isn't
> "You should write a proper makefile" a good solution for this?

1. There are many independent (small) programs which are
   not part of a big project and so there is no need for make file.
2. We use the compile command on many type of files which are not
   real "programs" - shell scripts (run with arguments), sql queries,
   reports (printed by the `compile') and many, many others.
3. This makes it more easy to have a standard policy regarding saving
   places for "compilation" output. For example we have some local
   tool that work on *.pns files, our tool convert it to <name>.pnl
   our defined 


>     5. Run some commands with interactive input to them (when needed) in a
>        compilation window, with an option to kill the compilation buffer.
>        (`compile-commands', read the help carefully).
> 
> Why is this better than using a single shell command string, with `;'
> and `sleep N' used as needed between the individual shell commands?

This is really used for programs that use /dev/tty (and not standard
input), for security (programs that need pass words) or dynamic
answers. It also has the added advantage of running multiple processes,
each with its own buffer and different name automatically. 

Ehud.


-- 
 Ehud Karni           Tel: +972-3-7966-561  /"\
 Mivtach - Simon      Fax: +972-3-7966-667  \ /  ASCII Ribbon Campaign
 Insurance agencies   (USA) voice mail and   X   Against   HTML   Mail
 http://www.mvs.co.il  FAX:  1-815-5509341  / \
 mailto:ehud@unix.mvs.co.il                  Better  Safe  Than  Sorry