Re: Pretest

[David Kastrup]

Lennart Borgman <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Lennart Borgman <address@hidden> writes:
>
> I am asking you off list not to clutter the list. I believe I still do
> not understand you.

I don't think it makes sense to take this off-list since we are
talking about how to implement something that affects all users, and
since there must be a consensus how to get there eventually.  And if
my explanations are deficient, you are not the only person who should
get a better version of them.

So I am taking the liberty of including the list again.

>> My proposal was all about _not_ needing to start Emacs server in
>> the first place.  Instead, Emacs is set up such that server-quit
>> will _not_ attempt talking to some emacsclient, but will rather
>> kill the emacsproxy it was started from.
>
> Maybe I understand now. But does not your proposal mean that you
> have several emacsen running if you are waiting for sever files or
> have emacs running as a server at the same time, or?
>
> Does it not also mean that for each file you want to edit this way
> emacs have to start itself and then run the init files?

Only if a user indeed does not have (server-start) in his .emacs file
or the communication fails.

If that is found dissatisfactory as a default, it would be possible to
let server-proxy-start (or whatever emacsproxy would cause its Emacs
copy to execute in order to inform it what process to kill on
server-done) also start the Emacs server by default.  But it would be
something which would not concern the operation of the _currently_
executing emacsclient/emacsproxy/emacs trio.  _This_ emacsclient has
already decided not to try the socket again and _replaced_ itself via
exec with emacsproxy as an alternative editor, and emacsproxy does not
talk via a socket, anyway, since its whole purpose is just to be an
Emacs replacement that exits in proxy when server-done is executed in
its Emacs, without going through the socket.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum