From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: called by a process filter?
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 21:33:31 -0400
Message-ID: <E1DWP3T-0001uV-U8@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <d5tmij$u03$1@sea.gmane.org> <E1DWBff-0003wZ-2F@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<m3is1oy5vn.fsf@kfs-l.imdomain.dk>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1115947668 29984 80.91.229.2 (13 May 2005 01:27:48 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 01:27:48 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: ihs_4664@yahoo.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 13 03:27:46 2005
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165])
	by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1DWOxg-0006ON-10
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 03:27:32 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1DWP6i-000617-R9
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 12 May 2005 21:36:52 -0400
Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1DWP6U-0005zj-2L
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 May 2005 21:36:38 -0400
Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1DWP6T-0005zJ-Ay
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 May 2005 21:36:37 -0400
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DWP6T-0005zG-6W
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 May 2005 21:36:37 -0400
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DWPBV-0001DM-Mw
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 May 2005 21:41:49 -0400
Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34)
	id 1DWP3T-0001uV-U8; Thu, 12 May 2005 21:33:32 -0400
Original-To: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm)
In-reply-to: <m3is1oy5vn.fsf@kfs-l.imdomain.dk> (storm@cua.dk)
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=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:37050
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:37050

    Binding a non-command object (a process) to this-command looks quite
    obscure and unclean to me.

To me it seems natural.  The filter was not run by any user command,
so I'm suggesting the idea that the command that ran the filter code
is the process itself.

    Lots of commands look at this-command (and internally we copy it to
    last-command etc).  I could envision this change breaking code in
    mysterious ways.

If something looks at this-command inside a process filter, it is
probably broken already.  In general it is unpredictable what command
is running, or was just running, when the process filter is called.
So such code would currently get unpredictable results.

It would indeed be safer to use a new variable, though.