Re: tumme messages in the echo area

[Mathias Dahl]

> I've already done this as Richard asked me to DTRT.  I've also used
> with-current-buffer where needed, and made the code fit on 80 columns.

Thanks!

> The pretest has not started yet and it makes sense to fix all reported bugs
> anyway.

I did not say I had anything against it.

> I don't use Tumme so it would be good if you can test my changes.

I will.

>  >                                             I am a bit skeptical about
>  > the "-c" switch.
>
> What problem can you see?  If you see a better fix then you should install it.

The problem with it is that it might now work in all shells. For
example, on Windows, cmd.exe (the default "shell") uses /c, not -c. I
don't know how other shells handle this.

> AFAIK shell-command is is for interactive use: hence the message in
> minibuffer.

I see now that it is an interactive function, but it accepts optional
extra parameters which suggests that one can use it non-interactively
too, right? Sorry if I misunderstand the purpose and intent of
interactive functions.

By the way, I checked the source and found this, which proves my point:

 (call-process shell-file-name nil t nil shell-command-switch command)

Please use the same technique, using `shell-command-switch'.

/Mathias