Hi Mosè, >>>>> Mosè Giordano <m...@gnu.org> writes:
> I didn't try the patch, just read it. The idea should be to launch an > asynchronous process and show its output, correct? Yes. > Only one comment: is it necessary to use > `start-process-shell-command'? Wouldn't `start-process' be > sufficient? Yes, mostly. The two would make little difference. I followed the previous code which used `shell-command-to-string'. (Actually, other parts of this function pay attention whether to use underlying shell or not, as the comments between the code tell: ;; Note: `shell-command-to-string' uses shell, only ;; `call-process' looks at `exec-path', thus only here makes ;; sense to use `executable-find' to test whether texdoc is ;; available. and ;; Called without prefix argument: just run "texdoc --view <pkg>" and ;; show the output, so that the user is warned in case it doesn't find ;; the documentation or "texdoc" is not available. ) As far as I can see, the difference between `start-process' and `start-process-shell-command' would be noticeable only when: (1) texdoc is not available on the user's machine. In that case, `start-process' would end in lisp error while `start-process-shell-command' would continue to run and show the error message "texdoc: No such file or directory" which the shell outputs. (2) the values of `exec-path' and PATH of the invoked shell differ. If one of them contains texdoc and other doesn't, calling texdoc might success or not, accordingly. Best, Ikumi Keita _______________________________________________ bug-auctex mailing list bug-auctex@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex