From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs vista build failures Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:57:58 -0400 Message-ID: References: <36366a980807101702r5677d096g8e62ef5b3e278868@mail.gmail.com> <87k5fph5rh.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <20080713214648.GB1076@muc.de> <20080714195651.GF3445@muc.de> <487C5FA3.4070603@emf.net> <87zloggji9.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <878wvxxkn6.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87ej5oz4pb.fsf@saeurebad.de> <87vdyzxype.fsf@saeurebad.de> <871w1njq32.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87iquzxgtk.fsf@saeurebad.de> <4884CFEF.8040404@gmail.com> <87ej5nxew2.fsf@saeurebad.de> <85y73u96jl.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <86r69mgig9.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1216735142 11932 80.91.229.12 (22 Jul 2008 13:59:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:59:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: hannes@saeurebad.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jul 22 15:59:50 2008 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 1KLIP1-0007WQ-BY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:59:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40714 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KLIO7-0000AK-Pn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:58:47 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KLIO3-00009r-Oa for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:58:43 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KLIO1-00009b-Kk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:58:42 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=54595 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KLIO1-00009Y-El for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:58:41 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:60206) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KLIO1-0003r2-5U for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:58:41 -0400 Original-Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1KLINK-0006mL-2H; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:57:58 -0400 In-reply-to: <86r69mgig9.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> (message from David Kastrup on Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:24:38 +0200) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:101196 Archived-At: > From: David Kastrup > Cc: hannes@saeurebad.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:24:38 +0200 > > Yes, since COMMAND.COM and CMD.EXE behave quite differently, and also > differently on different versions of Windows. And zsh behaves differently from Bash which behaves differently from the Borne shell. > So tell me: How to you quote the word (written as Lisp string) > "\"goof\" " to the typical Windows shell? See the Emacs makefiles for Windows. > >> There are consequences: for example, call-process and its ilk don't work > >> reliably. You can't expect the arguments given to them to actually make > >> it unmolested to the argc/argv of the called program's "main". > > > > Only because the surrounding code expects a Posix-compliant set of > > functions and syscalls. It was not written with portability in mind > > from the ground up. > > I often doubt it was written with anything in mind. As it stands, it is > a half-baked pseudo-Posix wrappery about CP/M calling conventions. I was talking about Emacs code that implements call-process and its subroutines. > When looking at design and implementation of first DOS and later > Windows, I often had the feeling "this is so stupid and braindead that I > can hardly believe it". With UNIX, the feeling was more often "I wish I > would have thought of that". Are you sure you know the design and implementation of DOS and Windows well enough to say this?