[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: executable-find in files.el
From: |
Michael Albinus |
Subject: |
Re: executable-find in files.el |
Date: |
Mon, 16 May 2005 21:27:54 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
> I am having trouble understanding your message.
>
> I agree with Stefan that, as long as `file-executable-p' returns
> meaningful values for remote files, there must be a meaning for
> `exec-path', `executable-find' and `start-process' as well in the
> remote case.
>
> I can't translate the second half of that sentence into a concrete
> meaning. What concrete cases are you talking about?
Sorry for being too short. I wanted to say that there should be a
general concept for running commands on remote hosts. Given that a
command is an executable file, I believe the same mechanism used for
remote files via file name handler could be used.
For `file-executable-p' that is implemented already (but this is a
simple file name operation). For `start-process' and `call-process' I
would prefer to have such a mechanism as well. Determining the file to
be executed as command IS a file name operation, so it would make sense
to extend both commands for that case (running on remote hosts).
`exec-path' and `executable-find' could be extended in the same way:
`exec-path' could provide a list of directories to be searched on a
remote host (yes, I see the problem of ambiguity), and
`executable-find' would return the path name on remote hosts. That's
what Stefan has said: `executable-find' returns already remote path
names, but the result is not useful for `call-process'.
> For `call-process' this has been done already,
>
> What is "this"?
Oh, I was too short, again. "This" means "provide the possibility to
run a command on a remote host ...". It does not mean yet "... via
`call-process'".
> although I don't
> understand why a new function (`process-file') was needed.
>
> process-file looks for a file handler. It would be incorrect
> for call-process to do that; it is NOT meant as an operation
> on a file.
I'm really happy to have `process-file' as mean for running remote
commands. But during migrating existing packages, the drawback has
been obvious: Everywhere there is the need of checking a command for
being remote or not, and then to call `process-file' or
`call-process'. If `call-process' would be able to handle remote
commands, most of the cases nothing would be needed to be changed -
the existing code would simply work. And the same for `start-process'.
An example is `compile': Internally, it uses `start-process'. Tramp
provides a dingy redefinition using `shell-command' (I can say it
offending because I've written it partly by myself). See tramp-util.el.
Best regards, Michael.
PS: Unfortunately for this discussion, I'll start a trip on Wednesday
being mostly offline next 4 weeks. Please be patient when I don't
respond immediately.
- Re: executable-find in files.el, (continued)
Re: executable-find in files.el, Michael Albinus, 2005/05/14
- Re: executable-find in files.el, Richard Stallman, 2005/05/14
- Re: executable-find in files.el,
Michael Albinus <=
- Re: executable-find in files.el, Stefan Monnier, 2005/05/17
- Re: executable-find in files.el, Kim F. Storm, 2005/05/17
- Re: executable-find in files.el, Stefan Monnier, 2005/05/17
- Re: executable-find in files.el, Richard Stallman, 2005/05/18
Re: executable-find in files.el, Richard Stallman, 2005/05/17
Re: executable-find in files.el, Michael Albinus, 2005/05/17
Re: executable-find in files.el, Richard Stallman, 2005/05/18
Re: executable-find in files.el, Richard Stallman, 2005/05/18