bug#1321: process-lines

[Peder O. Klingenberg]

On 15 Mar, 2015, at 0:45, Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org> wrote:
> 
> What about defining a `process-lines-2' that takes keyword arguments and
> accepts a list for PROGRAM?

That’s another possibility, of course.  But in my opinion, the &rest is usually 
a more convenient API for the callers, saving them the trouble of consing up a 
new list.  Also, I find functions with -N suffixes to be less descriptive names 
than they should be.

In my haste to send a patch last night, I managed to send the wrong version, 
one that didn’t work as advertised.  Sorry.  Please ignore my previous patch 
and consider this one instead:


...Peder...
-- 
Sløv uten dop

0001-Extend-process-lines-to-allow-exit-status-handling-v2.patch
Description: Binary data