Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I am having trouble understanding your message. > > I agree with Stefan that, as long as `file-executable-p' returns > meaningful values for remote files, there must be a meaning for > `exec-path', `executable-find' and `start-process' as well in the > remote case. > > I can't translate the second half of that sentence into a concrete > meaning. What concrete cases are you talking about?
Sorry for being too short. I wanted to say that there should be a general concept for running commands on remote hosts. Given that a command is an executable file, I believe the same mechanism used for remote files via file name handler could be used. For `file-executable-p' that is implemented already (but this is a simple file name operation). For `start-process' and `call-process' I would prefer to have such a mechanism as well. Determining the file to be executed as command IS a file name operation, so it would make sense to extend both commands for that case (running on remote hosts). `exec-path' and `executable-find' could be extended in the same way: `exec-path' could provide a list of directories to be searched on a remote host (yes, I see the problem of ambiguity), and `executable-find' would return the path name on remote hosts. That's what Stefan has said: `executable-find' returns already remote path names, but the result is not useful for `call-process'. > For `call-process' this has been done already, > > What is "this"? Oh, I was too short, again. "This" means "provide the possibility to run a command on a remote host ...". It does not mean yet "... via `call-process'". > although I don't > understand why a new function (`process-file') was needed. > > process-file looks for a file handler. It would be incorrect > for call-process to do that; it is NOT meant as an operation > on a file. I'm really happy to have `process-file' as mean for running remote commands. But during migrating existing packages, the drawback has been obvious: Everywhere there is the need of checking a command for being remote or not, and then to call `process-file' or `call-process'. If `call-process' would be able to handle remote commands, most of the cases nothing would be needed to be changed - the existing code would simply work. And the same for `start-process'. An example is `compile': Internally, it uses `start-process'. Tramp provides a dingy redefinition using `shell-command' (I can say it offending because I've written it partly by myself). See tramp-util.el. Best regards, Michael. PS: Unfortunately for this discussion, I'll start a trip on Wednesday being mostly offline next 4 weeks. Please be patient when I don't respond immediately. _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
