From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Michael Albinus Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Uncomprehensible DOC string Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 17:30:32 +0200 Message-ID: References: <86abj2wdry.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <874p98awa4.fsf@gmx.de> <85tzh8j79e.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <86fxsrop64.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <86lk2jn7du.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <863aorlfrk.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1210346982 29474 80.91.229.12 (9 May 2008 15:29:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 15:29:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 09 17:30:18 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JuUXy-0007ic-Tt for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 09 May 2008 17:30:11 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42344 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JuUXG-0004aO-FN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 09 May 2008 11:29:26 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JuUXC-0004a9-NB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 May 2008 11:29:22 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JuUXB-0004Zx-9u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 May 2008 11:29:22 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=38664 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JuUXB-0004Zu-4F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 May 2008 11:29:21 -0400 Original-Received: from mailrelay2.alcatel.de ([194.113.59.96]:44022) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JuUX5-00052B-KO; Fri, 09 May 2008 11:29:16 -0400 Original-Received: from slbhab.alcatel.de (slbhab.bln.sel.alcatel.de [149.204.63.218]) by mailrelay2.alcatel.de (8.13.8/8.13.8/ICT) with ESMTP id m49FTDeI027433; Fri, 9 May 2008 17:29:13 +0200 In-Reply-To: <863aorlfrk.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> (David Kastrup's message of "Fri, 09 May 2008 16:21:35 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (hpux) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 149.204.45.73 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 2) 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:96893 Archived-At: David Kastrup writes: >>>> _The_ file name handler, which belongs to `default-directory', will be >>>> applied. >>> >>> To what will it be applied? >> >> ??? >> >> To the arguments auf `start-file-process', of course. > > You just stated that it will _not_ be applied to all arguments of > start-file-process. I'm getting confused. Where did you read _this_? >> Like every other file name handler. That's why the doc strings says >> "Similar to `start-process'". > > Why would "every other" file name handler be applied to all arguments of > start-file-process? Please David, I have the impression you are twisting my words. `start-file-process' is like `start-process', and mostly it uses the implementation of `start-process' from process.c. In some cases, when `default-directory' has an own file name handler, it uses that implementation. That does not change the fact, that both functions work over the same set of arguments. And a user of `start-file-process' shall be prepared for both cases, for example by using (file-relative-name file) for all arguments of the process to be started, which are known to be a file. > One file name handler is chosen based on the _default_ directory (rather > than the executable name), and it is not applied to arguments of > start-file-process, but rather is used for starting the process with the > given arguments on the system indicated by the default directory. I don't see the difference, for Tramp it sounds like the same. But one could imagine another file name handler which does not run on "another system", but runs the command locally, with other purposes. One could imagine a `start-file-process' file name handler for URLs, which makes local copies of the files, and applies then the command using these saved files. On your local host. > At least that is what I think I understand. What the word "file" in > "start-file-process" is supposed to be about, I have no clue whatsoever. > Something like "start-nonlocal-process" or "start-handled-process" or > "start-process-anywhere" seems to be more informative. Me too. The function name was decided by Stefan. As usual, I don't discuss names. See . Anyway, "start-nonlocal-process" or "start-process-anywhere" might be misleading as well, because the process is started locally via `start-process', when `default-directory' does not have a file name handler. Stefan: I do NOT intend to discuss it again :-) Best regards, Michael.