[Top][All Lists]

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

bug#30862: 25.3; Need variant of `make-process' that uses file name hand

From: Philipp Stephani
Subject: bug#30862: 25.3; Need variant of `make-process' that uses file name handlers
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 00:10:31 +0100

Am Mi., 21. März 2018 um 13:50 Uhr schrieb Michael Albinus
> Philipp <address@hidden> writes:
> Hi Philipp,
> > Most fundamental process-related functions (call-process, start-process)
> > have variants that take file name handlers into account, except
> > make-process.  Since make-process is more powerful than start-process,
> > it should also have a variant that honors file name handlers.  For
> > example, it could accept another keyword argument ‘:file-handlers’
> > which, if non-nil, would invoke file name handlers based on
> > ‘default-directory’.
> I don't believe we need an extra keyword. It could be handled like
> start-file-process and process-file: if default-directory matches an
> entry in file-name-handler-list, the respective handler is called;
> otherwise the native implementation is applied.
> It is up to the file name handler to decide, whether a fallback to the
> native implementation shall be applied.
> This is different to the behavior of call-process and start-process;
> callees of make-process must be aware that a process on a remote host
> could be started.

I don't see why call-process and make-process should behave
differently in this regard. For call-process and start-process the
caller has to explicitly opt in into applying file name handlers (by
calling different functions); presumably because people consider it
too dangerous to accidentally start random processes on remote
machines. Why should make-process be different?

reply via email to

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