[Top][All Lists]

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

bug#25671: Feature request: emacs -Q --script as a single binary

From: Clément Pit--Claudel
Subject: bug#25671: Feature request: emacs -Q --script as a single binary
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 15:21:33 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0

On 2017-02-10 11:58, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Cc: address@hidden
>> From: Clément Pit--Claudel <address@hidden>
>> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:45:55 -0500
>>>>> I believe changing the program behavior depending on how it was named
>>>>> in the command that invoked it is against GNU coding standards.
>>>> What about providing elisp or emacs-script as a separate binary?
>>> What about it?
>> Would that be OK? Could it work?
> Yes, it will.  Although distributing two large binaries might be
> overkill.  (All that just to make shell scripts slightly simpler?)

Right; that's why I thought the "two possible names for the same binary" 
approach was nice :/
It would make it possible to run elisp command line programs in Windows without 
a batch script wrapper, and it would make these scripts nicer in GNU/Linux and 
macOS.  But arguably that's still a limited benefit.  If there's no way to 
reuse the Emacs binary (that is, if there's no way to make "elisp" just be a 
wrapper around "emacs"), then I think we should close this issue.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

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