Re: Quote file name args to start-process-shell-command?

[Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se>]

Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>     But the current documentation string and the availability of multiple
>>     arguments that are _documented_ as multiple arguments is quite
>>     misleading.  If we decide that those arguments are not intended to be
>>     multiple arguments but rather something that is merely spliced
>>     together with spaces into one single string, then the documentation
>>     should reflect this.
>>     
>
>   
>> The function does what it is supposed to do.
>> I agree that we should change the documentation in this way.
>>     
>
> I still think that saying
>
>    (start-process-shell-command NAME BUFFER COMMAND &rest COMMAND-ARGS)
>
> is misleading and the "flexibility" it provides is very minor.  So it'd be
> better to only have
>
>    (start-process-shell-command NAME BUFFER COMMAND)
>
> because it makes the behavior of the function much more obvious.  Makes for
> a simpler docstring as well, which in turn will save us trouble and the
> users as well.
>
> And the callers can easily do the (mapconcat 'identity <args> " ")
> themselves when they need it.
>   

After reading this long discussion I agree to this.