From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Christoph Scholtes Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: exec-path and PATH Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:45:50 -0600 Message-ID: <86vczdeftd.fsf@gmail.com> References: <86ipvfiyp0.fsf@gmail.com> <83vczfr0o0.fsf@gnu.org> <86ei63hxsz.fsf@gmail.com> <83tyez9g3n.fsf@gnu.org> <86wrjuhous.fsf@gmail.com> <83pqpmakt0.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1300650385 18637 80.91.229.12 (20 Mar 2011 19:46:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 19:46:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Mar 20 20:46:20 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q1OZv-0001Mo-9N for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:46:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43642 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q1OZu-0004uK-PS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:46:18 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=35892 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q1OZj-0004sP-NI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:46:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q1OZi-0005ZR-Mm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:46:07 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-iw0-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169]:34480) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q1OZg-0005YT-CK; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:46:04 -0400 Original-Received: by iwl42 with SMTP id 42so7260327iwl.0 for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:46:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references :user-agent:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; bh=LH7mO1CFs/LgqaXCFYfIgxN8OGKcI4GmHGi9Z68mmY0=; b=DvnWrEyHXEm6EIdM1WWBLj1N6dfhPv0D5mhoNkOS7XnYCO8df/EVQGc3F4WSJdsbEe Jqu7Nejd/Z89HFT5lZmknXyVzHZWOt9Wgw1zvZ/m2TSak1OH+pBzE6JAGkvBdsHTEycC EGvvEo4Q6yHCUcDcNnsw8hRCCN8E1v7YU7OAA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:user-agent:date :message-id:mime-version:content-type; b=MP3e23QtJlw5LuNxR8H1eMLNu+NHuEODAofXXQuNbA8z8TJygz8JyseT0kq/oO1V5K z4GqBufhb0CtXDq5LalseXMlLrVYjsNKRb5ZXiylcX90aG0AxKrFJvPMSTTliojBapW2 k+08rjfzPxEEraFTORbFH2LDrq6/5xkUhHUXo= Original-Received: by 10.42.130.198 with SMTP id w6mr5294022ics.496.1300650362964; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:46:02 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from localhost (71-208-187-99.hlrn.qwest.net [71.208.187.99]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id mv26sm172074ibb.45.2011.03.20.12.46.00 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:46:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83pqpmakt0.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:59:23 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (windows-nt) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 209.85.214.169 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:137455 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > PATH in process-environment is not used within Emacs except to pass it > to sub-processes. Why would we want to restore its value after the > sub-process exits? Sorry Eli. This was my mistake. I was under the wrong impression that Emacs worked with the OS's PATH directly and not with its own copy of it. After looking at process-environment and the setenv function documentation I see how it works. However, now I wonder why we have a facility like exec-path at all. Wouldn't the process-environment's PATH be enough? (start|call)-process could look at PATH directly instead of exec-path. This would also solve the problem of having to keep two separate path collections (PATH and exec-path) up to date. I saw that quite a few functions use exec-path, so I am not necessarily suggesting to change it. I am just curious. Christoph