From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: info inconsistency about "Shell Commands in Dired"
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 00:52:22 -0400
Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Message-ID: <E1C0CFK-0002uH-Uf@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <20040821.040855.00470268.jet@gyve.org>
	<E1ByZ4A-0006yr-Iy@fencepost.gnu.org> <x5hdqwe7pn.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>
	<200408212249.i7LMncn06287@raven.dms.auburn.edu>
	<E1BzOCR-00061H-4I@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<200408252236.i7PMa3913735@raven.dms.auburn.edu>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org
X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1093495989 28494 80.91.224.253 (26 Aug 2004 04:53:09 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 04:53:09 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: jet@gyve.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Aug 26 06:53:02 2004
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165])
	by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1C0CFx-0000EB-00
	for <ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org>; Thu, 26 Aug 2004 06:53:02 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33)
	id 1C0CKZ-0006ab-5r
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2004 00:57:47 -0400
Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33)
	id 1C0CKQ-0006YC-0K
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2004 00:57:38 -0400
Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33)
	id 1C0CKO-0006XF-W9
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2004 00:57:37 -0400
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C0CKO-0006X6-SJ
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2004 00:57:36 -0400
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C0CFL-00087k-Ao
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2004 00:52:23 -0400
Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34)
	id 1C0CFK-0002uH-Uf; Thu, 26 Aug 2004 00:52:23 -0400
Original-To: Luc Teirlinck <teirllm@dms.auburn.edu>
In-reply-to: <200408252236.i7PMa3913735@raven.dms.auburn.edu> (message from
	Luc Teirlinck on Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:36:03 -0500 (CDT))
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:26511
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:26511

       I saw people discussing other methods, %s and envvars.
       The envvar method is too inconvenient.  %s might be acceptable;
       people mainly discussed how to implement it.

       Let's compare these two methods in terms of desirability as
       features.

    I believe that the method I proposed offers the least deviation from
    the current syntax.  

What method is that?  Is it one of the two I described above,
or something else?