Re: start-process somehow expands *.org

[Lennart Borgman]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 7:19 AM, Thierry Volpiatto
<address@hidden> wrote:
> Lennart Borgman <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Glenn Morris <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>
>>> Lennart Borgman wrote (on Tue, 1 Mar 2011 at 03:07 +0100):
>>>
>>>> I am calling start-process with one of the program-args beeing
>>>> "*.org". Somehow this is expanded to just the first of matching file.
>>>>
>>>> What is happening? Is this the way it is supposed to work?
>>>
>>> Will you PLEASE learn to give complete examples, rather than always
>>> this "I saw a thing; is it a problem?" kind of mail.
>>
>> Sorry, I thought I was clear enough. start-process has a "&rest" arg
>> called "program-args".
>>
>>> Maybe the following is relevant, how should I know what you doing.
>>>
>>> Functions that Create Subprocesses
>>>
>>>   All three of the subprocess-creating functions have a `&rest'
>>>   argument, ARGS. The ARGS must all be strings, and they are supplied
>>>   to PROGRAM as separate command line arguments. Wildcard characters
>>>   and other shell constructs have no special meanings in these
>>>   strings, since the strings are passed directly to the specified
>>>   program.
>>
>> Yes, it might be relevant. However I do not understand what is happening.
>>
>> I have something like this
>>
>>    (setq command
>>       ("ruby.exe" "c:\\path-to\\idxsearch.rb" "--root"
>> "c:/where-to-search/" "--filepatt" "*.org" "--query" "word1,word2")
>>
>>    (apply 'start-process (downcase mode-name) outbuf command)
>>
>> It looks like idxsearch.rb recieves the first file matching *.org, in
>> my case "act.org" - instead of "*.org" as I expected.
>>
>> It might be ruby.exe that expands *.org, but if I try a similar
>> command line ruby.exe does not expand *.org.
>>
>> This is on w32, as usual with my patched version.
>
> Maybe use --filepatt as last arg and file-expand-wildcards on *.org.

*.org is the argument to --filepatt and it only takes one argument so
this can't be done.

> Or even better use start-process-shell-command.

That can't be used either because of other problems.