[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Maybe we can improve this function call-process-to-string?
From: |
Jean Louis |
Subject: |
Re: Maybe we can improve this function call-process-to-string? |
Date: |
Thu, 8 Apr 2021 21:17:15 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/2.0.6 (2021-03-06) |
* Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> [2021-04-08 19:30]:
> So you actually need the numbers reported by those commands? if so,
> you can read them from the buffer into which the command's output is
> stored, right? You don't actually need the numbers in their string
> form, right?
In that particular example numbers are just used as string, but
sometimes I need numbers. That may not be most important. I do not
understand your method of getting output from external command.
How practically to do it?
I understood reading it from buffer is different than reading from
shell-command-to-string.
Then to have output in buffer, I need call-process, but then again I
need to enter that buffer and read string out of it. Example is here:
(defun call-process-to-string (program &optional infile display &rest args)
(let* ((buffer-name "RCD Emacs Lisp output")
(buffer (generate-new-buffer buffer-name))
(status (apply #'call-process program infile buffer display args))
(current-buffer (current-buffer))
(output (buffer-to-string buffer)))
(kill-buffer buffer)
output))
Again I have to use strings there.
> > I would not know how to get output from system command by using those
> > functions without using shell-command-to-string or call-process
>
> You said buffer-substring doesn't take a buffer as an argument. I'm
> suggesting something like
>
> (with-current-buffer (get-buffer "foo")
> (buffer-substring ...))
That again comes back as a string, right? I do use that type, in the
above function for example.
Jean
- Maybe we can improve this function call-process-to-string?, Jean Louis, 2021/04/08
- Re: Maybe we can improve this function call-process-to-string?, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/04/08
- Re: Maybe we can improve this function call-process-to-string?, Jean Louis, 2021/04/08
- Re: Maybe we can improve this function call-process-to-string?, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/04/08
- Re: Maybe we can improve this function call-process-to-string?, Jean Louis, 2021/04/08
- Re: Maybe we can improve this function call-process-to-string?, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/04/08
- Re: Maybe we can improve this function call-process-to-string?,
Jean Louis <=
- Re: Maybe we can improve this function call-process-to-string?, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/04/08
- Re: Maybe we can improve this function call-process-to-string?, Jean Louis, 2021/04/08
- Re: Maybe we can improve this function call-process-to-string?, Arthur Miller, 2021/04/08
- Re: Maybe we can improve this function call-process-to-string?, Jean Louis, 2021/04/08
- Re: Maybe we can improve this function call-process-to-string?, Arthur Miller, 2021/04/08
- Re: Maybe we can improve this function call-process-to-string?, Jean Louis, 2021/04/09
- Re: Maybe we can improve this function call-process-to-string?, tomas, 2021/04/09
Re: Maybe we can improve this function call-process-to-string?, Michael Albinus, 2021/04/08
Re: Maybe we can improve this function call-process-to-string?, Stefan Monnier, 2021/04/08