Re: simple useful functions

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

>> >> IIUC these scripts are written for /bin/sh, right?  How do (t)csh users
>> >> handle that?
>> >> [ Sorry, I'm not that familiar with cross-compiling: OpenWRT is about
>> >> as far as I got into this, and it "takes care of things" in ways
>> >> I haven't tried to understand.  They don't use such setup scripts, at
>> >> least in a user-visible way (although the user does perform the
>> >> cross-compiling).  ]
>> 
>> > Those scripts are written for the shell the tool provider intends user
>> > to use.  The shell to use is not always our choice.
>> 
>> In the case of the scripts you've used, was there some way to
>> mechanically figure out which shell was intended?  I'm thinking that
>> using shell-file-name is probably not the right choice, and we should
>> instead default to /bin/sh (which I'd expect to be the most common
>> case).
>> 
>> > This is a good point.  I am contaminating the whole emacs.  It made me
>> > review compile.el and I learned the existence of
>> > compilation-environment which I think is more appropriate than
>> > `setenv' function.
>> So only `compile' needs to know about these env-vars?
> No, the debugger also needs.  I don't find similar consideration in
> gdb-ui.el.  Do you have a better suggestion?

Well, we could imagine a new var (like compilation-environment) and make
all relevant commands obey it (maybe it could be implemented directly
within call/start-process and the new var set via dir-locals.el).


        Stefan