Re: Grand Unified Debugger Rewrite's process buffer: comint, eterm or eshell?

[Dave Love]

rocky <rocky@gnu.org> writes:

> I have started to rewrite gud from the ground up.

Why, exactly?

> For the process buffer I have 3 choices.
>
> 1. I can stick with comint.el. It seems the most creaky.

`Creaky' how?  The whole idea of comint is to be a general way to run
sub-processes like debuggers, although there should be another layer to
abstract things like inferior programming interpreters.  What's wrong
with it for that?

> I use it both in
> comint.el and eshell.el in "shell tracker" (think pdb-track) mode. 

I implemented a prototype gud-minor-mode long ago for that sort of
thing, as alluded to in python.el if I recall correctly.  It's
straightforward but can't be a simple add-on to GUD, so wasn't going to
be useful.  The pdbtrack stuff is a mistake, apparently from a
mono-lingual programming culture, and it's unfortunate it's been
installed in Emacs, making it harder to do the right thing.