>> > Passing 1 as last arg of locate-file is subtly different from passing >> > file-executable-p. I think the latter does a better job, so I think >> > executable-find should use file-executable-p. >> >> Have you read the comment you quoted?
> Yes. But since you obviously didn't read my identical comment posted > in response to your suggestion to do what you just did in this version > of executable-find (or perhaps you read it, but disregarded it), I > posted the same comment again. Hmm... I replied to it in http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2005-05/msg00381.html but haven't seen any answer. >> Do you think it's more important to "do a subtly better job" or to "match >> the behavior of call-process"? > I think they should do the same. But the original executable-find > used file-executable-p, so your change is subtly incompatible, unless > you change openp to use the same method as file-executable-p. >> In my view, the point of executable-find is to figure out whether there is >> a command that we can run. If it tells us "I found /ssh:foo/bar/baz", but >> then call-process fails because it doesn't work through Tramp, I think it's >> a problem. > I agree. But the solution should be to make all 3 of these do exactly > the same job in exactly the same way. Fine, but as long as noone changes call-process to do something meaningful when requested to execute a file which is only available via a file-name-handler, I think we should stick to 1 because I think it's more important to match the behavior of call-process (as I wrote in the comment). But, really, this is all academic anyway since I don't know of anyone who has funny file-name-handled directories on her exec-path. Stefan _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
