[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [AUCTeX-devel] TeX-run-silent discards all outputs from process

From: Mosè Giordano
Subject: Re: [AUCTeX-devel] TeX-run-silent discards all outputs from process
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 12:33:17 +0200


2017-05-19 7:43 GMT+02:00 Ikumi Keita <address@hidden>:
> Hi all,
> I found a strange code in `TeX-run-silent' of tex-buf.el.
> (defun TeX-run-silent (name command _file)
>   "Start process with second argument."
>   (let ((dir (TeX-master-directory)))
>     (set-buffer (get-buffer-create "*TeX silent*"))
>     (if dir (cd dir))
>     (erase-buffer)
>     (let ((process (start-process (concat name " silent")
>                                   nil TeX-shell
>                                   TeX-shell-command-option command)))
>       (if TeX-after-start-process-function
>           (funcall TeX-after-start-process-function process))
>       (process-kill-without-query process))))
> Since the second argument of the `start-process' is nil, the process is
> not associated with any buffer.  In addition, the function does not
> assign any filter to the process unlike `TeX-run-background', so the
> outputs from the process is totally discarded while the process runs in
> background.  Thus the prepared buffer "*TeX silent*" is not used at all.
> A function to discard all outputs from the process and let the process
> to run in background exists separately as `TeX-run-discard'.  I suppose
> that the intent of making `TeX-run-silent' is to collect the outputs
> from the process into "*TeX silent*" buffer.
> So I propose to change the second argument of `start-process' like this:
>     (let ((process (start-process (concat name " silent")
>                                   (current-buffer) TeX-shell
>                                   ...
> though it is not so useful without adding a key bind to show "*TeX
> silent*" buffer to the user.
> (It does not make siginificant difference anyway because
> `TeX-run-silent' is not used at all in the current AUCTeX.)

I think your proposal makes sense, but I'm wondering whether it's
better to completely remove a function not used in AUCTeX that doesn't
even do correctly what it should.  Ok, this can be done later (AUCTeX
12?), so please go ahead with your fix.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]