[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: tumme messages in the echo area
From: |
Mathias Dahl |
Subject: |
Re: tumme messages in the echo area |
Date: |
Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:08:39 +0200 |
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
- tumme messages in the echo area, Andrea Russo, 2006/07/09
- Re: tumme messages in the echo area, Stefan Monnier, 2006/07/12
- Re: tumme messages in the echo area, Mathias Dahl, 2006/07/13
- Re: tumme messages in the echo area, Stefan Monnier, 2006/07/13
- Re: tumme messages in the echo area, Mathias Dahl, 2006/07/13
- Re: tumme messages in the echo area, Stefan Monnier, 2006/07/13
- Re: tumme messages in the echo area, Mathias Dahl, 2006/07/13