bug#39067: closed (shell-command-dont-erase-buffer strange behaviour)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sun, 19 Jan 2020 11:19:19 +0100
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#39067: shell-command-dont-erase-buffer strange 
behaviour
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #39067,
regarding shell-command-dont-erase-buffer strange behaviour
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden.)


-- 
39067: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=39067
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> shell-command-dont-erase-buffer strange behaviour
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Fri, 10 Jan 2020 05:34:18 +0000
>
>
>
>
> C-h v shell-command-dont-erase-buffer
> C-h f shell-command
>
> Cut to the chase with the test case:
>
> (let ((shell-command-dont-erase-buffer 'beg-last-out))
>   (with-current-buffer (get-buffer-create "OUT")
>     (erase-buffer)
>     (shell-command "/bin/echo FOO" t)
>     (shell-command "/bin/echo FOO" t)))
>
> The result (as expected) is a buffer named OUT with 2 lines FOO.
> The same result is expected with the following code:
>
> (let ((shell-command-dont-erase-buffer 'beg-last-out))
>   (with-current-buffer (get-buffer-create "OUT")
>     (erase-buffer)
>     (shell-command "/bin/echo FOO" "OUT")
>     (shell-command "/bin/echo FOO" "OUT")))
>
> However in this case (and in some other cases) shell-command erases the
> "OUT" buffer despite a non-NIL binding of
> shell-command-dont-erase-buffer
>
> (at least since emacs 25.2)
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#39067: shell-command-dont-erase-buffer strange behaviour
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Sun, 19 Jan 2020 11:19:19 +0100
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux)
>
>
>
>
> Michael Albinus <address@hidden> writes:
>
> Fixed the bug into emacs-27 branch with commit:
> 'Fix shell-command-dont-erase-buffer feature'
> (2eb0b7835d1a9cd4b804436e33c71058cb38f178)
>
> > I haven't tested yet, but some minor nits:
> Thank Michael for the corrections!  I have added then but this one:
>
> > ;; successive commands know the position where the new command starts.
> >
> >> +          ;; (unless (and pos (memq sym '(save-point beg-last-out)))
> >
> > This is superfluous, isn't it?
> That is requred for a corner case: one of the new tests fails if I
> remove that.
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---