Re: Use specific functions to create shell processes

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Tino Calancha <tino.calancha@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 15:52:03 +0900 (JST)
> Cc: tino.calancha@gmail.com
> 
> we have in subr.el, specific funtions to create processes
> when the program is a shell, e.g., call-process-shell-command.
> Using these funtions when appropiate, i.e., when the program
> is a shell, results in a more readable code.
> I have noticed that not all the code in the Emacs tree use these 
> functions.
> 
> I propose a patch to replace calls to general functions creating
> processes with the shell specific ones, when the program is a shell.
> 
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
> >From c036272adeb7268c0d496e40d6cd4410e9ecac7d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Tino Calancha <tino.calancha@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 15:45:46 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH] Use specific functions to create shell processes
> 
> subr.el define specific functions to create processes when
> the program is a shell.  Replace calls to the general
> functions creating processes with calls to
> the shell specific if the program is a shell.
> (lisp/calc/calc-graph.el, lisp/gnus/gnus-art.el)
> (lisp/gnus/gnus-dired.el, lisp/gnus/gnus-fun.el)
> (lisp/gnus/gnus-sum.el, lisp/gnus/gnus-uu.el)
> (lisp/gnus/mail-source.el, lisp/gnus/mm-decode.el)
> (lisp/ibuf-ext.el, lisp/image-dired.el)
> (lisp/mail/mailalias.el, lisp/man.el)
> (lisp/mh-e/mh-print.el, lisp/net/network-stream.el)
> (lisp/org/ob-eval.el, lisp/progmodes/ada-xref.el)
> (lisp/progmodes/compile.el, lisp/progmodes/gdb-mi.el)
> (lisp/progmodes/verilog-mode.el, lisp/simple.el)
> (lisp/vc/diff.el):
> Use 'process-file-shell-command', 'call-process-shell-command',
> 'start-process-shell-command', and 'start-file-process-shell-command'
> instead of 'process-file', 'call-process', 'start-process'
> and 'start-file-process' if the program is a shell.

Thanks for working on this.

Like I said in the past, I'd like us to have a test for each
functionality whose implementation we are refactoring.  Can we do that
in this case?