Re: [PATCH] Add facility to collect stderr of async subprocess

[Philipp Stephani]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> schrieb am Mi., 5. Okt. 2016, 09:38:

> From: Tino Calancha <address@hidden>
> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 16:10:25 +0900 (JST)
> cc: Tino Calancha <address@hidden>, address@hidden
>
> > This proposal has a disadvantage of being confusingly similar to what
> > call-process provides, except that there the cdr is a file name, not a
> > buffer.
> I see as an advantage: it follows similar syntaxis as `call-process', so
> it's easier to remember.

So you see an advantage where I see a disadvantage.  Interesting.

> The difference 'buffer' <--> 'file' makes clear in the doc strings.

It is IME best not to create confusion that requires to read the
documentation in the first place.

> > What advantages do you see to adding this convenience feature, when
> > make-process already provides it?
> Again, some people may be familiar with (buf-out . buf-err) idiom from
> `call-process', and they may be reluctant to use functions using
> keyword arguments.  Not my case, though.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this proposal?

My opinion would be to mark start-process as obsolete.