Re: Feature request: new function start-remote-process

[Michael Albinus]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

>> Do you still object the name?
>
> Yes, and for the same reasons: the definition of the function makes no
> reference to "remote" processes, only to a file-name-handler (which may use
> remote processes, of course, but that's not relevant).

As I said already, I don't care too much the name (although I still
see it different).

Does anybody objects "start-file-process", as Stefan proposed?

>         Stefan

Best regards, Michael.