Is buffer size fixed in batch mode?

Is buffer size fixed in batch mode?

[Brian Elmegaard]

Hi,

I have made some simple lisp code that converts xml to
LaTeX. This runs fine when I have emacs open and have the xml in a
buffer. 

If instead I run emacs as a batch opening the file and running the
elisp part of runs fine, but not all.

However, if I cleanup multiple spaces first it works.

So, does emacs in batch mode somehow fix the buffer size?

-- 
Brian (remove the sport for mail)
http://www.et.web.mek.dtu.dk/Staff/be/be.html
http://www.rugbyklubben-speed.dk

Re: Is buffer size fixed in batch mode?

[Ian Zimmerman]

Brian> If instead I run emacs as a batch opening the file and running
Brian> the elisp part of runs fine, but not all.

Please fix the grammar here first; the sense is lost.

-- 
A true pessimist won't be discouraged by a little success.

Re: Is buffer size fixed in batch mode?

[Brian Elmegaard]

Ian Zimmerman <nobrowser@gmail.com> writes:

> Please fix the grammar here first; the sense is lost.

Oops, sorry. 
The question is: What differences should or could  be expected when
interactively loading and running a lisp function compared to a call
like: 
emacs foo.bar -l baz.el -f baz


-- 
Brian (remove the sport for mail)
http://www.et.web.mek.dtu.dk/Staff/be/be.html
http://www.rugbyklubben-speed.dk

Re: Is buffer size fixed in batch mode?

[Johan Bockgård]

Brian Elmegaard <brian@rkspeed-rugby.dk> writes:

> Oops, sorry. 
> The question is: What differences should or could  be expected when
> interactively loading and running a lisp function compared to a call
> like: 
> emacs foo.bar -l baz.el -f baz

It depends on the function. Maybe you could tell us in more details
what you are trying to do?

-- 
Johan Bockgård

Re: Is buffer size fixed in batch mode?

[Brian Elmegaard]

bojohan+news@dd.chalmers.se (Johan Bockgård) writes:

> It depends on the function. Maybe you could tell us in more details
> what you are trying to do?

I have auto-generated xml and I want to convert it to latex, so I do
(goto-char 1) 
and a lot of 
(save-excursion
  (while (search-forward "<foo>" nil t)
    (replace-match "\\foo[bar]{baz}" nil t))
  )

(save-excursion
  (while (re-search-forward "<foobar>\\(.*\\)</foobar>" nil t)
    (replace-match "\\\\foobar{\\1}" nil nil))
  )

At the end I did several replaces of multiple spaces, end of line
spaces, and so on.

If I open the xml in a running emacs it works fine, but if I did it
with a batch it part of the tex disappeared in the output. 

The I decided to move the cleanup of multiple spaces and so on to the
beginning of the code and it runs fine.

Is this to be expected?
-- 
Brian (remove the sport for mail)
http://www.et.web.mek.dtu.dk/Staff/be/be.html
http://www.rugbyklubben-speed.dk

Re: Is buffer size fixed in batch mode?

[David Kastrup]

Brian Elmegaard <brian@rkspeed-rugby.dk> writes:

> bojohan+news@dd.chalmers.se (Johan Bockgård) writes:
>
>> It depends on the function. Maybe you could tell us in more details
>> what you are trying to do?
>
> I have auto-generated xml and I want to convert it to latex, so I do
> (goto-char 1) 
> and a lot of 
> (save-excursion
>   (while (search-forward "<foo>" nil t)
>     (replace-match "\\foo[bar]{baz}" nil t))
>   )
>
> (save-excursion
>   (while (re-search-forward "<foobar>\\(.*\\)</foobar>" nil t)
>     (replace-match "\\\\foobar{\\1}" nil nil))
>   )
>
> At the end I did several replaces of multiple spaces, end of line
> spaces, and so on.
>
> If I open the xml in a running emacs it works fine, but if I did it
> with a batch it part of the tex disappeared in the output. 
>
> The I decided to move the cleanup of multiple spaces and so on to the
> beginning of the code and it runs fine.
>
> Is this to be expected?

You likely did something wrong.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Is buffer size fixed in batch mode?

[Brian Elmegaard]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> You likely did something wrong.

I guess so, but how can it go wrong in batchmode only?

-- 
Brian (remove the sport for mail)
http://www.et.web.mek.dtu.dk/Staff/be/be.html
http://www.rugbyklubben-speed.dk

Re: Is buffer size fixed in batch mode?

[David Kastrup]

Brian Elmegaard <brian@rkspeed-rugby.dk> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> You likely did something wrong.
>
> I guess so, but how can it go wrong in batchmode only?

Because there is something in your code that does something different
in batchmode.  batchmode happens to be different.  Not least of all,
because there is no current window and several initialization files
don't get loaded.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Is buffer size fixed in batch mode?

[Brian Elmegaard]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> in batchmode.  batchmode happens to be different.  Not least of all,
> because there is no current window and several initialization files
> don't get loaded.

Of course. Thanks.

-- 
Brian (remove the sport for mail)
http://www.et.web.mek.dtu.dk/Staff/be/be.html
http://www.rugbyklubben-speed.dk