From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Don't print "process finished" into the stderr buffer. Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 07:59:05 +0300 Message-ID: References: <20180404120218.257212-1-phst@google.com> <20180404120218.257212-2-phst@google.com> <834lkr3ygo.fsf@gnu.org> <83lgdxzvs2.fsf@gnu.org> <86efjn3dg0.fsf@stephe-leake.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1523336238 10642 195.159.176.226 (10 Apr 2018 04:57:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 04:57:18 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android To: emacs-devel@gnu.org, Stephen Leake , emacs-devel Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 10 06:57:14 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f5lLF-0002eh-Ue for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 06:57:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39137 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f5lNK-00054j-3j for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 00:59:22 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51368) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f5lND-000542-6i for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 00:59:16 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f5lN9-0001ot-BT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 00:59:15 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:41942) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f5lN9-0001on-7g; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 00:59:11 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.12.182.96] (port=22868 helo=[10.161.216.159]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1f5lN7-000434-9Z; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 00:59:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <86efjn3dg0.fsf@stephe-leake.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:224489 Archived-At: On April 10, 2018 7:14:39 AM GMT+03:00, Stephen Leake wrote: > Eli Zaretskii writes: >=20 > >> From: Philipp Stephani > >> Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2018 20:21:40 +0000 > >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu=2Eorg, phst@google=2Ecom > >>=20 > >> > * src/process=2Ec (syms_of_process): Add 'ignore' symbol=2E > >> > (Fmake_process): Use it as sentinel for the standard error pipe > >> > process=2E > >>=20 > >> Why would we want that, and by default on top of that? Please > give at > >> least some rationale behind this change=2E > >>=20 > >> Neither the manual not the docstring for `make-process' specify > that > >> Emacs prints "Process foo stderr > >> finished" at the end of the standard error buffer, so that message > >> shouldn't be printed=2E > > > > That assumes that the documentation is correct and the code isn't; > it > > could be the other way around=2E > > > > But I'm guessing that the current behavior was unexpected for some > > reason, and that's why you looked in the documentation=2E If the > guess > > is correct, could you describe why it was unexpected/unwanted? >=20 > I had to work around that behavior as well, in DVC (Emacs front end > for > some CM tools)=2E When you are parsing the output of a process, that > string is unexpected=2E Are we talking about the same thing? Inserting the exit status into the p= rocess buffer by the default sentinel is veteran Emacs behavior; if you don't wan= t that, you are supposed to define your own sentinel=2E Philipp suggested to avoid this *only* for buffers collecting stderr outpu= t, and *only* when make-process defines :stderr=2E That's a much more specia= lized situation, which is also quite new=2E By contrast, what you are saying se= ems to suggest changes in general behavior of make-process that IMO are a no-star= ter at this time=2E