* Alternative to process-lines for tramp @ 2019-04-04 2:00 Ergus 2019-04-04 2:54 ` Basil L. Contovounesios 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Ergus @ 2019-04-04 2:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: emacs-devel Hi all I was checking the counsel-gtags package because it was not working in Tramp and the issue was basically that the code uses the function 'process-lines' but this function internally uses call-process (instead of what the name suggests) I was looking for an alternative (like call-process => process-file) but I couldn't find any. So the question is if there is a reason for not providing such function; else if you think that the existing one should be modified or a new one included just to change the process-file instead of call-process part? Finally I want to ask about a package adoption process in melpa, because the original counsel-gtags is abandon (since 2017 and the author doesn't reply to questions, pull request or issues) and there is a fork from FelipeLema that wants to substitute it (adopt) but there is not any answer from Melpa for his pull request since some weeks. So maybe there is something wrong in the adoption. Thanks in advance Ergus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Alternative to process-lines for tramp 2019-04-04 2:00 Alternative to process-lines for tramp Ergus @ 2019-04-04 2:54 ` Basil L. Contovounesios 2019-04-04 3:06 ` Basil L. Contovounesios 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Basil L. Contovounesios @ 2019-04-04 2:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ergus; +Cc: emacs-devel Ergus <spacibba@aol.com> writes: > I was checking the counsel-gtags package because it was not working in > Tramp and the issue was basically that the code uses the function > 'process-lines' but this function internally uses call-process (instead > of what the name suggests) What does the name process-lines suggest? > I was looking for an alternative (like call-process => process-file) > but I couldn't find any. Indeed, I'm not aware of any functions similar to process-lines that respect file handlers. > So the question is if there is a reason for not providing such function; > else if you think that the existing one should be modified or a new one > included just to change the process-file instead of call-process part? I don't know whether there's a particular reason for the lack of such a function; I assume it's just that no-one has worked on it yet. process-lines is quite restricted in what it can do well, which makes it an unpopular choice for any sufficiently complex or performance-sensitive program. See, for example, bug#1321[1]. I would, nevertheless, welcome a more flexible process-lines, whether via keyword arguments, a separate function, or otherwise. > Finally I want to ask about a package adoption process in melpa, because > the original counsel-gtags is abandon (since 2017 and the author doesn't > reply to questions, pull request or issues) and there is a fork from > FelipeLema that wants to substitute it (adopt) but there is not any > answer from Melpa for his pull request since some weeks. So maybe there > is something wrong in the adoption. I'm not an expert on MELPA, but AFAIK it all works by submitting Issues and Pull Requests via its GitHub site[2]. I see the particular PR you're referring to[3] was only submitted 8 days ago. I'd say give Donald, Steve, and Jonas a little longer to respond, especially since this involves a change in project ownership, and one of a prominent Emacs package author at that. Note also that MELPA isn't an official ELPA repository, so it doesn't necessarily fall under the jurisdiction of core Emacs developers. [1]: https://debbugs.gnu.org/1321 [2]: https://github.com/melpa/melpa/ [3]: https://github.com/melpa/melpa/pull/6093 -- Basil ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Alternative to process-lines for tramp 2019-04-04 2:54 ` Basil L. Contovounesios @ 2019-04-04 3:06 ` Basil L. Contovounesios 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Basil L. Contovounesios @ 2019-04-04 3:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ergus; +Cc: emacs-devel "Basil L. Contovounesios" <contovob@tcd.ie> writes: > I would, nevertheless, welcome a more flexible process-lines, whether > via keyword arguments, a separate function, or otherwise. Given that process-lines boils down to a call-process followed by (split-string (buffer-string) "\n"), one "otherwise" solution would be to provide a convenience function which does the buffer-splitting (but in a more efficient way than split-string). One could then mix and match call-process, process-file, et al. with this new convenience function. YMMV. -- Basil ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-04-04 3:06 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2019-04-04 2:00 Alternative to process-lines for tramp Ergus 2019-04-04 2:54 ` Basil L. Contovounesios 2019-04-04 3:06 ` Basil L. Contovounesios
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.