bug#18133: Suppressing asynchronous command output

[Reuben Thomas]

On 23 December 2016 at 18:59, martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at> wrote:

> ​I'm not trying to override the user here, I'm just trying to avoid adding
> another configuration option.​

You change long-standing behavior when you add such an option.

​I haven't talked about adding an option.​

 

Did

​ p​

eople agree that the buffer should be preferably not displayed?  The
current status is that

  To run COMMAND without displaying the output
  in a window you can configure `display-buffer-alist' to use the action
  `display-buffer-no-window' for the buffer `*Async Shell Command*'.

With your proposal the buffer would not be displayed and the user would
have to delete the ‘display-buffer-alist’ entry to display the buffer.

​That's the case with my original patch. But I agreed with Eli (and you) that the default behaviour should be the same as at present.​

​I'm just asking how to implement this, preferably without adding another configuration option.​

 

> It would be nice if the user only had to change one thing to enable hiding
> the async output buffer until there is output.

But when you add the entry to ‘display-buffer-alist’ the buffer will
already be hidden without any user intervention.

​Again, you are describing the behaviour of my original patch. ​I then suggested adding an option to display-buffer-alist's defcustom specification. But you said that is not allowed (if I understood correctly).

I will try to outline the current position again:

1. I agree that the current default behaviour should remain as it is.

2. I would like to add the ability to easily turn off displaying the Async Command output buffer until there is some output.

3. I suggested achieving this by i) adding an option to display-buffer-alist, and ii) documenting this in shell-command.

4. You stated that it is not allowed for code to change display-buffer-alist. I was puzzled by this, because other user variables such as auto-mode-alist are changed by code as well as by the user. In any case, I am not suggesting automatically changing display-buffer-alist; rather I have suggested adding an option to the customization menu for display-buffer-alist.

So, maybe you could give your opinion of my current suggestion (3), ignoring my original patch?

Sorry if I have confused you, and I hope the above makes things clearer.

--

http://rrt.sc3d.org