Re: Quote file name args to start-process-shell-command?

[Stefan Monnier]

>     But the current documentation string and the availability of multiple
>     arguments that are _documented_ as multiple arguments is quite
>     misleading.  If we decide that those arguments are not intended to be
>     multiple arguments but rather something that is merely spliced
>     together with spaces into one single string, then the documentation
>     should reflect this.

> The function does what it is supposed to do.
> I agree that we should change the documentation in this way.

I still think that saying

   (start-process-shell-command NAME BUFFER COMMAND &rest COMMAND-ARGS)

is misleading and the "flexibility" it provides is very minor.  So it'd be
better to only have

   (start-process-shell-command NAME BUFFER COMMAND)

because it makes the behavior of the function much more obvious.  Makes for
a simpler docstring as well, which in turn will save us trouble and the
users as well.

And the callers can easily do the (mapconcat 'identity <args> " ")
themselves when they need it.


        Stefan