Major usability issue

Major usability issue

[Bruce Korb]

For years I have captured the output of a shell command and inserted
it into my document.  The latest distributions of Linux now carry a
version of emacs that makes doing that non-obvious.  I'm sure it is
doable, but it is really important to just be able to ALT-| then
type a command and be able to use a mouse click to capture the text.
I haven't read emacs lisp macros yet in order to reverse-engineer
what has been done; but I shouldn't have to either.  :-(

inserting output of shell-command (was: Major usability issue)

[lawrence mitchell]

Bruce Korb wrote:

> For years I have captured the output of a shell command and inserted
> it into my document.  The latest distributions of Linux now carry a
> version of emacs that makes doing that non-obvious.  I'm sure it is
> doable, but it is really important to just be able to ALT-| then
> type a command and be able to use a mouse click to capture the text.
> I haven't read emacs lisp macros yet in order to reverse-engineer
> what has been done; but I shouldn't have to either.  :-(

/----[ C-h k M-! ]
| M-! runs the command shell-command
|    which is an interactive compiled Lisp function in `simple'.
| (shell-command COMMAND &optional OUTPUT-BUFFER ERROR-BUFFER)
|
| Execute string COMMAND in inferior shell; display output, if any.
| With prefix argument, insert the COMMAND's output at point.
| [...]
\----

So you probably want to be typing something like C-1 M-! at the
correct point in your buffer.

-- 
lawrence mitchell <wence@gmx.li>

Re: inserting output of shell-command (was: Major usability issue)

[Lute Kamstra]

lawrence mitchell <wence@gmx.li> writes:

> Bruce Korb wrote:
> 
> > For years I have captured the output of a shell command and inserted
> > it into my document.  The latest distributions of Linux now carry a
> > version of emacs that makes doing that non-obvious.  I'm sure it is
> > doable, but it is really important to just be able to ALT-| then
> > type a command and be able to use a mouse click to capture the text.
> > I haven't read emacs lisp macros yet in order to reverse-engineer
> > what has been done; but I shouldn't have to either.  :-(
> 
> /----[ C-h k M-! ]
> | M-! runs the command shell-command
> |    which is an interactive compiled Lisp function in `simple'.
> | (shell-command COMMAND &optional OUTPUT-BUFFER ERROR-BUFFER)
> |
> | Execute string COMMAND in inferior shell; display output, if any.
> | With prefix argument, insert the COMMAND's output at point.
> | [...]
> \----
> 
> So you probably want to be typing something like C-1 M-! at the
> correct point in your buffer.

Oops, typo.  Make that: C-u M-!

Lute.

-- 
(spook) => "genetic Crypto AG White Water"
(insert-file-contents "~/.signature") => (error "`~/.signature' too rude")

Re: Major usability issue

[Kai Großjohann]

Bruce Korb <bkorb@pacbell.net> writes:

> For years I have captured the output of a shell command and inserted
> it into my document.  The latest distributions of Linux now carry a
> version of emacs that makes doing that non-obvious.  I'm sure it is
> doable, but it is really important to just be able to ALT-| then
> type a command and be able to use a mouse click to capture the text.
> I haven't read emacs lisp macros yet in order to reverse-engineer
> what has been done; but I shouldn't have to either.  :-(

Well, what is the obvious thing that you do and what happens when you
do it?  From your description it's not clear to me what you're doing.

Maybe you just need to switch to the *Shell Command Output* buffer
and copy the text from there?  This buffer is not shown by default,
when the output of the shell command is short.

See the document on shell-command-on-region to see how to change it:

/----
| If the command generates output, the output may be displayed
| in the echo area or in a buffer.
| If the output is short enough to display in the echo area
| (determined by the variable `max-mini-window-height' if
| `resize-mini-windows' is non-nil), it is shown there.  Otherwise
| it is displayed in the buffer `*Shell Command Output*'.  The output
| is available in that buffer in both cases.
\----

Does this help?

kai
-- 
A large number of young women don't trust men with beards.  (BFBS Radio)

Re: Major usability issue

[Peter Boettcher]

Bruce Korb <bkorb@pacbell.net> writes:

> For years I have captured the output of a shell command and inserted
> it into my document.  The latest distributions of Linux now carry a
> version of emacs that makes doing that non-obvious.  I'm sure it is
> doable, but it is really important to just be able to ALT-| then
> type a command and be able to use a mouse click to capture the text.
> I haven't read emacs lisp macros yet in order to reverse-engineer
> what has been done; but I shouldn't have to either.  :-(

M-| still runs shell-command-on-region for me.  Maybe this is one of
the distros that mucked up the Alt and Meta keys?  What does C-h k M-|
show you?


-- 
Peter Boettcher
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
boettcher@ll.mit.edu
(781) 981-5275

Re: Major usability issue

[Bruce Korb]

Kai Großjohann wrote:

> > For years I have captured the output of a shell command and inserted
> > it into my document.  The latest distributions of Linux now carry a
> > version of emacs that makes doing that non-obvious.

> See the document on shell-command-on-region to see how to change it:

This is a behavioral change not listed in the news.

> /----
> | If the command generates output, the output may be displayed
> | in the echo area or in a buffer.
> | If the output is short enough to display in the echo area
> | (determined by the variable `max-mini-window-height' if
> | `resize-mini-windows' is non-nil), it is shown there.  Otherwise
> | it is displayed in the buffer `*Shell Command Output*'.  The output
> | is available in that buffer in both cases.
> \----
> 
> Does this help?

It explains where the text got to.  Thanks!  Now I have to
set up a macro to pull that text into the current buffer.

This:

C-x + b + "*Shell Comm" + RET + C-h + a + Alt-w + C-x + b + RET + C-y

is a tad unwieldy.  I like the old behavior of splitting the screen
and bringing up the `*Shell Command Output*' buffer.  Much easier.
*sigh*.  Thanks again.

Re: Major usability issue

[Barry Margolin]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1538 bytes --]

In article <mailman.1031086444.5149.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>,
Bruce Korb  <bkorb@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Kai Großjohann wrote:
>
>> > For years I have captured the output of a shell command and inserted
>> > it into my document.  The latest distributions of Linux now carry a
>> > version of emacs that makes doing that non-obvious.
>
>> See the document on shell-command-on-region to see how to change it:
>
>This is a behavioral change not listed in the news.

What change?

>
>> /----
>> | If the command generates output, the output may be displayed
>> | in the echo area or in a buffer.
>> | If the output is short enough to display in the echo area
>> | (determined by the variable `max-mini-window-height' if
>> | `resize-mini-windows' is non-nil), it is shown there.  Otherwise
>> | it is displayed in the buffer `*Shell Command Output*'.  The output
>> | is available in that buffer in both cases.
>> \----
>> 
>> Does this help?
>
>It explains where the text got to.  

It's been doing it this way for quite some time.  I still use 20.7 and it
performs this heuristic.

>				     Thanks!  Now I have to
>set up a macro to pull that text into the current buffer.

Giving it a numeric argument tells it to insert the output in the current
buffer.  M-! inserts it at the point, M-| replaces the region with the
result.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net
Genuity, Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.

Re: Major usability issue

[Kai Großjohann]

Bruce Korb <bkorb@veritas.com> writes:

> It explains where the text got to.  Thanks!  Now I have to
> set up a macro to pull that text into the current buffer.

You can also use the C-u prefix with M-| or M-!...

kai
-- 
A large number of young women don't trust men with beards.  (BFBS Radio)

Re: Major usability issue

[Bruce Korb]

Barry Margolin wrote:
> >This is a behavioral change not listed in the news.
> 
> What change?

If not a change, then I have inadvertently always had the
mini buffer line limit low enough that I never stumbled into
it before.  Can't tell anymore.  Don't have a 20.x version
access.....

Thanks to all!

Re: Major usability issue

[Miles Bader]

Barry Margolin <barmar@genuity.net> writes:
> It's been doing it this way for quite some time.  I still use 20.7 and it
> performs this heuristic.

The difference is that in versions prior to 21.1, the echo-area could
only display one line, so the split between `display in echo-area' and
`pop up a window' naturally occured at 2 lines.  In emacs 21.x, the
echo-area can expand to show multiple lines, so the echo-area gets used
more often.  [So one way to avoid this behavior is to set
`max-mini-window-height' to 1.]

Of course, if the _reason_ someone wants to get to the output buffer is
to cut the text and insert it into the current buffer, it's much better
to just use a prefix-argument to `shell-command', which does exactly
the right thing...

-Miles
-- 
Suburbia: where they tear out the trees and then name streets after them.