On Thu, 6 Oct 2016, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Tino Calancha >> Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 17:37:05 +0900 (JST) >> Cc: jwiegley@gmail.com, Emacs developers , >> michael.albinus@gmx.de, Tino Calancha >> >>> Actually, the need in this separation is rather rare. Which is not >>> surprising, since running commands from a terminal by default delivers >>> both stdout and stderr to the screen, and the cases where these are >>> redirected separately are rare. >> It depends of what the user is doing. `shell-command' and >> `async-shell-command' have being offering that since long time ago. >> >> It is quite common redirect stderr from a shell: all shells allow that >> AFAIK. > > My point is not about allowing it -- we definitely do. My point is > about the importance of having this in every API. If Michael is not ging to support it in remote i must agree with you and say that is not important. >I'm saying that > this feature is relatively rarely needed, that's all. How many times > did you need to redirect stderr separately from stdout in shell > commands you run from the shell prompt? Honestly, not often. We might modify the doc strings for shell-comamand and async-shell-command, following part: ----- In Elisp, you will often be better served by calling ˇstart-process˘ directly, since it offers more control and does not impose the use of a shell (with its need to quote arguments). ----- I understand what Stefan means here with more control, but someone may argue that s-c and a-s-c allow the possibility to separate stdout from stderr, which s-p does not. That sounds like less control, at least with respect the output.