emacs, shell -- command execution problem

emacs, shell -- command execution problem

[relson]

Within emacs I use the bash shell a lot along with previous line
editing.  For example, I might execute a command like:

   ls $( find / -name whatever )

then I might use "!!" to recall the above command so I can edit it and
use it again.    When I do this, i.e. use "!!", the command is
recalled as

  ls $ ( find / -name whatever )

i.e. with 1 blank space between "$" and "(".  Presently I have to
manually edit the line to remove the space.  Is there a fix for "!!"
that will properly recall the command, i.e. without the blank space?

Re: emacs, shell -- command execution problem

[Ian Eure]

On Jan 4, 2009, at 3:35 PM, relson@osagesoftware.com wrote:

> Within emacs I use the bash shell a lot along with previous line
> editing.  For example, I might execute a command like:
>
>   ls $( find / -name whatever )
>
> then I might use "!!" to recall the above command so I can edit it and
> use it again.    When I do this, i.e. use "!!", the command is
> recalled as
>
>  ls $ ( find / -name whatever )
>
> i.e. with 1 blank space between "$" and "(".  Presently I have to
> manually edit the line to remove the space.  Is there a fix for "!!"
> that will properly recall the command, i.e. without the blank space?
I think you aren't explaining your problem very well. `!!' will not  
recall the command for editing, but run it again. I ran your command  
in both Emacs 22 and 23, and it works for me.

What doesn't work is running
ls $(find place -type f)

Then pressing M-p to recall it. This does insert a space between the $(.

I don't know why. I suggest that you report the bug to the Emacs  
maintainers.

In the mean time, you can work around it by using:

find path -type f -ls

Or, you can press C-c C-p, which will move point to the previous  
command. From there, you can press RET to run it again, or C-c RET to  
copy it to the current command line.

  - Ian

Re: emacs, shell -- command execution problem

[Peter Dyballa]

Am 05.01.2009 um 03:56 schrieb Ian Eure:

> In the mean time, you can work around it by using:
>
> find path -type f -ls


Or 'find path -type f -exec ls {} \;' to have the same short listing.

--
Greetings

   Pete

A TRUE Klingon warrior does not comment his code.