From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Roland Winkler" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#17666: 24.3.91; [regression] call-process in read-only buffers Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 13:14:15 -0500 Message-ID: <48887.62424.222491.21388@gargle.gargle.HOWL> References: <874n03jqxr.fsf@gnu.org> <42346.74055.958802.21388@gargle.gargle.HOWL> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1401732918 18871 80.91.229.3 (2 Jun 2014 18:15:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 18:15:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 17666-done@debbugs.gnu.org To: Glenn Morris Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 02 20:15:11 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WrWlK-0005D9-8i for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2014 20:15:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48647 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WrWlJ-0003nB-Io for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2014 14:15:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50845) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WrWlE-0003li-D5 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2014 14:15:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WrWlD-0003jh-3d for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2014 14:15:04 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:42366) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WrWlD-0003jd-0e for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2014 14:15:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WrWlC-0001m2-NY for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2014 14:15:02 -0400 Resent-From: "Roland Winkler" Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 18:15:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: cc-closed 17666 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Mail-Followup-To: 17666@debbugs.gnu.org, winkler@gnu.org, winkler@gnu.org Original-Received: via spool by 17666-done@debbugs.gnu.org id=D17666.14017328696754 (code D ref 17666); Mon, 02 Jun 2014 18:15:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 17666-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Jun 2014 18:14:29 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41242 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WrWka-0001ko-BG for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2014 14:14:29 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:54780 ident=Debian-exim) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WrWkT-0001ka-G2 for 17666-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2014 14:14:22 -0400 Original-Received: from anlextwls026-089.wl.anl-external.org ([130.202.26.89]:52829 helo=regnitz) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WrWkS-0002iQ-HQ; Mon, 02 Jun 2014 14:14:16 -0400 In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:89909 Archived-At: On Mon Jun 2 2014 Glenn Morris wrote: > If you know it isn't going to produce any output, why don't you > just discard the output instead of sending it to a read-only > buffer (which is something that really doesn't make sense)? Certainly, there are various ways around this. In my case, I cannot remember anymore in all detail why I wrote the code the way I did. I expect that I was really *expecting* to have no output. Also, in my case, the call of call-process is associated with a buffer that is most often read-only. So using a read-only buffer for the process output was probably my cheap solution to keep track of "really no output".