Re: We have asynchronous sessions, why have anything else?

[Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com>]

Ivar Fredholm <freddyholms@protonmail.com> writes:

> A session-less block can be executed by starting a session with a special name (say "*none") which always gets killed after block execution is completed. For interpreter-less languages, we could use the shell as an interpreter (for instance, if we wanted to execute C, we could just start a shell, and send it the gcc command to compile and execute). Would this not cut down the amount of code that needs to be maintained and uniformize the existing code?

Feel free to compare ob-eval.el and ob-comint.el. Their functionality is
not equivalent. In particular ob-eval.el has a better handling of
errors.

If you find a way to unify the two without loosing the functionality, it
will be welcome.

Best,
Ihor