Re: Opening a pty without a process

[Nick Roberts]

 > >> (open-pty-buffer buffer)
 > -> "/dev/pts/1"
 > 
 > How 'bout:
 > 
 >    (defun open-pty-buffer (buffer)
 >      (let* ((process-connection-type 'pty)
 >             (proc (start-process "foo" buffer "sh" "-c"
 >                                  "while sleep 3600; do :; done")))
 >        (process-tty-name proc)))

In gdb-mi.el (in ELPA) I do:

 (define-derived-mode gdb-inferior-io-mode comint-mode "Inferior I/O"
   "Major mode for gdb inferior-io."
   :syntax-table nil :abbrev-table nil
   ;; We want to use comint because it has various nifty and familiar
   ;; features.  We don't need a process, but comint wants one, so create
   ;; a dummy one.
   (make-comint-in-buffer
    "gdb-inferior" (current-buffer) "sleep" nil "1000000000"))

and then set the terminal for program IO in GDB:

  (gdb-input
  ;; Needs GDB 6.4 onwards
  (list
    (concat "-inferior-tty-set "
            (process-tty-name (get-process "gdb-inferior")) "\n")
            'ignore))

but it seems a bit of a hack

 > I guess it would be convenient indeed to be able to use nil for the
 > program rather than a contraption like the one above.  OTOH we could
 > just use `hexl' by adding a flag to it (it's already abused in a similar
 > way by `ielm').

Could ielm use a buffer like the one I'm proposing?

 > BTW in your patch I do not understand where the create_pty code comes
 > from.  It seems to come from Emacs code, in which case it is code
 > duplication and should be avoided.

It's almost the first half of create_process.  Sure it would make sense to
reuse code once it has been agreed that the function is useful.

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob