From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: --eval Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 12:25:24 -0400 Message-ID: <877ioso16z.fsf@jbms.ath.cx> References: <86myxs8rl4.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <86sl7k1djm.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <87644dy5aj.fsf_-_@jurta.org> <851wf1sgmv.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1185121546 3298 80.91.229.12 (22 Jul 2007 16:25:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 16:25:46 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Juri Linkov , Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jul 22 18:25:45 2007 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 4.50) id 1ICeFc-0002Ox-48 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:25:44 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ICeFb-0005MH-CY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 22 Jul 2007 12:25:43 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1ICeFX-0005M2-KP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Jul 2007 12:25:39 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1ICeFW-0005Lq-8z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Jul 2007 12:25:39 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ICeFW-0005Ln-6m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Jul 2007 12:25:38 -0400 Original-Received: from alnrmhc11.comcast.net ([206.18.177.51]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1ICeFU-00076j-Ju; Sun, 22 Jul 2007 12:25:36 -0400 Original-Received: from jbms.wv.cc.cmu.edu (c-67-163-202-228.hsd1.pa.comcast.net[67.163.202.228]) by comcast.net (alnrmhc11) with SMTP id <20070722162529b1100evl67e>; Sun, 22 Jul 2007 16:25:35 +0000 Original-Received: by jbms.wv.cc.cmu.edu (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 22 Jul 2007 12:25:24 -0400 X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring In-Reply-To: <851wf1sgmv.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> (David Kastrup's message of "Sat\, 21 Jul 2007 21\:26\:00 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/22.0.990 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: NetCache Data OnTap 5.x 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:75303 Archived-At: David Kastrup writes: > Juri Linkov writes: >>> Uh, -f was a typo. I really meant --eval in my example. >> >> BTW, a pity that Emacs doesn't provide a short option for the `--eval' >> command line argument! >> >> By analogy with `--funcall' that have the corresponding `-f', >> the short option for `--eval' and `--execute' would be `-e'. >> >> Even though startup.el currently treats `-e' as a shorthand of `-funcall', >> it seems that such use of `-e' is obsolete and we are free to reassign it >> to `--eval' and `--execute' because the manual doesn't document it: > Deprecating -e is ok with me, but a potentially dangerous command may > well be spelled explicitly. Potentially dangerous? Evaluating is hardly something that is safe-guarded anywhere in emacs. Furthermore, unlike a key binding that might accidentally be hit and do something unexpected, it is highly unlikely to perform some harmful action when something completely different was intended. Most importantly, if -e is typed by mistake, the argument will almost certain not be a valid lisp expression, and even if it is, it almost certainly won't be a lisp expression that results in a function call. -- Jeremy Maitin-Shepard