Re: bash source code block: problem after ssh commands

[Bruno Barbier <brubar.cs@gmail.com>]

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net> writes:

> Bruno Barbier <brubar.cs@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> FWIW, M-x shell differs from what a plain terminal is doing (xterm, in
>> my case), but, I do prefer 'M-x shell' behavior: it allows me to copy
>> multiple lines, getting the same results as when I type them manually,
>> or copy them line by line. My xterm doesn't seem to allow me to do that.
>
> The behavior of M-x shell can indeed be made use of.
> However, this particular difference with xterm, AFAIU, is not
> documented - unaware users may be surprised.
> The situation is worse with Org shell blocks - users naturally expect
> script-like behavior (even for :session), but run into edge cases like
> this and get confused.
>
> We should either document the caveats, or, preferably, make the behavior
> more consistent with expectations. At least, by default.

> That's why I think that filing a bug report makes sense from Org mode
> project point of view.

Thanks for the explanation.  I see you got my point.  We'll see what
Emacs maintainers will say about the current behavior of M-x shell;
filling the bug report was definitely a good idea anyway.



Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net> writes:
> __By default__, Org should produce more expected behavior - what users
> would get from running a script file rather than from redirecting stdin.
> We can optionally leave the stdin redirection as an option to be used by
> the users who understand the peculiarities.

I agree that it would be simpler to switch to the script-like behavior
by default on org side.  About the interactive-like behavior, that
would be nice to keep it, if some people rely on it in their existing
documents (I personally don't).

Bruno