Re: page-at-a-time output for M-x shell

[Anselm Helbig <anselm.helbig+news2009@googlemail.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1580 bytes --]

At Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:12:25 +0200,
Sébastien Vauban <wxhgmqzgwmuf@spammotel.com> wrote:
> 
> Francis Moreau wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 11:51 am, Teemu Likonen <tliko...@iki.fi> wrote:
> >> On 2009-07-13 02:16 (-0700), Francis Moreau wrote:
> >>> On Jul 13, 10:21 am, Teemu Likonen <tliko...@iki.fi> wrote:
> >>>> OK, then it's probably me who fails to understand why do you keep talking
> >>>> about "M-x shell" when you need a terminal. This "page-at-a-time" feature
> >>>> comes with terminal emulation. There's no need to make "M-x shell" a real
> >>>> terminal because there already is one: "M-x term".
> >
> > Damn, I repeat one more time: I don't want "| less" or less(1) work in "M-x
> > shell" (hope this is clear now)
> 
> Just one (real) question: what's the advantage of `M-x shell'? I understand
> `M-x term' allows for full-blown terminal emulation, but can we use it every
> time we were going to use `M-x shell'?
> 
> Or are there some things `M-x term' can't do while `M-x shell' can?

M-x term is a terminal emulation, so things work more or less like
they do in an xterm, gnome-terminal or putty. With M-x shell you're
using emacs to construct the command to pass to the shell. This is an
advantage if you shell doesn't keep a history or offers no completion
mechanism. Also, you can use isearch to search through the command
output, copy stuff into the kill ring or use the rectangle
functions. Or you might just prefer the emacs keybindings over the
one's your shell offers. 8-)

HTH, 

Anselm


-- 
Anselm Helbig 
mailto:anselm.helbig+news2009@googlemail.com