From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Generalize start-process with keyword args Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 09:15:35 +0200 Message-ID: <83egooyu08.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87d24d3uwz.fsf-ueno@gnu.org> <86a8zc21ua.fsf@gmail.com> <83oanszq6u.fsf@gnu.org> <8661a01stb.fsf@gmail.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1426576569 16865 80.91.229.3 (17 Mar 2015 07:16:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 07:16:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Andy Moreton Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 17 08:16:01 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1YXljK-0004HP-9o for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 08:15:58 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53082 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YXljJ-00063P-E2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 03:15:57 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40812) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YXljE-00060a-Vl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 03:15:53 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YXljA-0003Dw-S8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 03:15:52 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout27.012.net.il ([80.179.55.183]:51798) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YXljA-0003Dj-Ix for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 03:15:48 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout27.012.net.il by mtaout27.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NLC00J00GZERL00@mtaout27.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 09:10:27 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by mtaout27.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NLC00FS4H9F5P50@mtaout27.012.net.il>; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 09:10:27 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <8661a01stb.fsf@gmail.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 80.179.55.183 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:183942 Archived-At: > From: Andy Moreton > Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 22:27:44 +0000 > > On Mon 16 Mar 2015, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > >> From: Andy Moreton > >> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 19:12:45 +0000 > >> > >> start-process assumes that the system is capable of handling shebang > >> lines in shell scripts and launching them by executing a shell. > > > > Can you point out where does this assumption live in the code? > > In the callers of start-process Can you give me an example of such a caller? (I'm not asking idle questions here; there are aspects of the problem you describe that aren't really clear to me, but I prefer finding out the answers by looking at the code than by asking too many questions.) > which assume that an executeable shell script can be used as the > command argument. How do they decide that a shell script is executable? > >> It would be useful to have a way to have start-process have an option to > >> start the new process via a shell, so that existing code that assumes > >> that it can use start-process with an executable shell script can also > >> be made to work on Windows. > > > > The Windows shells cannot run Unix shell script, so I'm not sure I > > understand how would you like this to work. > > By (optionally) invoking the command via a shell. But what shell would be able to interpret such scripts on Windows? AFAIK, there are no good candidates for that role. > This allows integration of unix style commands inplemented as > executable shell scripts with Win32 emacs. IMO, those shell scripts should be ported to Windows by converting them to batch files that the stock Windows shell can interpret.