Re: Make call-process (and start-process?) filename handlers?

[Andreas Schwab]

address@hidden (Kai Großjohann) writes:

|> Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
|> 
|> > I'm concerned about shell-command, because it looks like this will
|> > make all shell commands execute remotely when you are visiting a
|> > remote file.  That is not natural, and not necessarily correct; it
|> > could cause a painful surprise.  It might be ok as a special exception
|> > feature, if it were documented as one.  Currently it isn't.
|> 
|> Stefan and me have precisely the opposite opinion: we find it natural
|> to execute the program on the remote host, and unnatural to do it
|> locally.

It depends, I'd say.  If you just want to do a quick shell command, you
probably want to execute it locally.  But if you run the shell command on
the file associated with the buffer it is surely natural to run it on the
same host where the file resides.  IMHO in most cases you want to run it
locally, and running remotely should be a special case.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, address@hidden
SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."