From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Redirecting standard output Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 03:54:10 +0200 Organization: Programmerer Ingebrigtsen Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1303350878 29635 80.91.229.12 (21 Apr 2011 01:54:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 01:54:38 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 21 03:54:34 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QCj6H-0008Mc-8q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 03:54:33 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:32959 helo=lists2.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QCj6G-0000lx-S8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:54:32 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:56329) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QCj6E-0000le-09 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:54:30 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QCj6C-0001kq-VZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:54:29 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:52145) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QCj6C-0001kf-Kp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:54:28 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QCj69-0008Jn-He for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 03:54:25 +0200 Original-Received: from cm-84.215.51.58.getinternet.no ([84.215.51.58]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 03:54:25 +0200 Original-Received: from larsi by cm-84.215.51.58.getinternet.no with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 03:54:25 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 24 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: cm-84.215.51.58.getinternet.no Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAAD1BMVEXw28P8+e+dOlrGjI/e vrnYW2ysAAACa0lEQVQ4jU2TjXHsIAyExZkCUEwBecIFYIkCwNB/TW+Fk5kwczd3fGjRz0LTRExF 5KIsexVbZose/PoSVSl0vsCwdJGa3p8x1waIVrE5BcBMBk+VW/qXtpanlNVVp0sN5hT5sSPZWgxA E0Ac5M78tMi+HmnpkEmQvd+Nb/oFNAuk7AdofcF0YJ6VXO/JSuGNuOhAVsW0WA8OooOkAFEPQtlI g4nVomuRlxo1AkzpRAt3HNDyvthYu3KTSjEsqVoD8fmC6sAvQTIintcXQIvaIGXoZ/CTcifyTrSF viArRFTPM/kn4u6/INHOlRngWtGBN19K7CEHoNQVAQCyI6Q874xQG5r7F4T5TrWnDRaAqRYp9573 tXyKC0sdGEDlD0Ag+oj1F3jlyNCTsBBoV+H5AjSYpx6Gk4F3eccPcFcVD2ghefA6bE2lT2mea3Ha ME6XKjaN0EF799G1Et9OIZoaZDx+l7GbDp1lhW4pLhJOlcYbNAzoKIS+I3IiuKXAeVtXaiwYJYx0 6m4HsaeFXlSCk8uUfxnKradM/ILvJfRcKt/hSnwiggJuhNSVlXTlp90Fs+3wEFriA1H+kMJiscIG MHZyu4kaf0ImIzpyhX1fAJMUhMNgMEjOFVOFFPI9rffpLicbnLK7xL/8KJb/pVY5pvgD4NEd52DO OihSouT3ULrsmWM0o3MYoyFwDkDaXl5h3A4OzsstNWBFPFgredzDoHBuB47cIZ56hxdglE5cT4Kp Kufgd/M5R4u14y0taLQ4eLlBUcgabbUGcEA7ds7NzQ7/kpfDhCfUOMEgy/ZTeD3vdezdWXPAq/q7 /gOmTpxU+mM4CgAAAABJRU5ErkJggg== Mail-Copies-To: never X-Now-Playing: Noveller's _Red Rainbows_: "St. Powers" User-Agent: Gnus/5.110016 (No Gnus v0.16) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:A9Hdh2GbuWO+84YmOzdtEEyz4sg= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 80.91.229.12 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:138597 Archived-At: I've started reading the code, and it doesn't look too harrowing to do -- there's a possibility it might make the code simpler, because we'd basically be able to factor out stdout/stderr handling into one helper function instead of special-casing the stdout/stderr handling. I think. But looking at the code, I remembered `start-process', which doesn't allow separating stderr at all, so I took a look at that function, too. It's much simpler and cleaner than `call-process'. `call-process' has a fair bit of #ifdef for DOS and NT and Windows, while `start-process' doesn't. And even stranger is that if you give a 0 as the value for `call-process', you get asynchronous behaviour, which is very much like the behaviour that `start-process' provides. (But without the possibility of adding filters.) So here's my question: What's the reason that `call-process' isn't just a shim around `start-process'? Hm... oh! process.c isn't compiled at all on MS-DOS? Hm. Shame. It would have been nice if those two (very similar functionality-wise) functions could have been merged somehow... -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/