Re: We have asynchronous sessions, why have anything else?

[Ihor Radchenko]

Ivar Fredholm <freddyholms@protonmail.com> writes:

> A session-less block can be executed by starting a session with a special 
> name (say "*none") which always gets killed after block execution is 
> completed. For interpreter-less languages, we could use the shell as an 
> interpreter (for instance, if we wanted to execute C, we could just start a 
> shell, and send it the gcc command to compile and execute). Would this not 
> cut down the amount of code that needs to be maintained and uniformize the 
> existing code?

Feel free to compare ob-eval.el and ob-comint.el. Their functionality is
not equivalent. In particular ob-eval.el has a better handling of
errors.

If you find a way to unify the two without loosing the functionality, it
will be welcome.

Best,
Ihor