Re: What I'm missing when using M-x shell

["Francis Moreau" <francis.moro@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Dan Espen
<daneNO@more.mk.spamtelcordia.com> wrote:
> "Francis Moreau" <francis.moro@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> [ please CC me when replying to me ]
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Dan Espen
>> <daneNO@more.mk.spamtelcordia.com> wrote:
>>> Compiles are M-x compile, greps are M-x grep,
>>> ls is dired, email is MH-E.
>>
>> But what would you suggest as replacement for:
>>
>> $ make && gdb || mail -s "Compilation failed" home
>
> First, the make is always run as M-x compile.
>
> In my case, the most likely outcome from M-x compile is
> that I'll be correcting syntax errors.  Since I've run
> M-x compile, M-x next-error becomes really useful.
>
> So, no make from the command line for me.
>
> I'm got a big fan of running under gdb.
> If I did want to run under gdb a lot, I'd probably figure out
> Emacs gdb.
>
> Typically my make target is not just a compile but a compile
> and test and check results.  No need to send myself
> an email since the M-x compile clearly shows whether the
> compile/test worked.
>

That was just a (silly) example where scripting can be powerful and
can't be replace by some M-x <cmd> or whatever...

-- 
Francis