Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@posteo.net> writes:
> Bruno Barbier <brubar...@gmail.com> writes: > >> FWIW, M-x shell differs from what a plain terminal is doing (xterm, in >> my case), but, I do prefer 'M-x shell' behavior: it allows me to copy >> multiple lines, getting the same results as when I type them manually, >> or copy them line by line. My xterm doesn't seem to allow me to do that. > > The behavior of M-x shell can indeed be made use of. > However, this particular difference with xterm, AFAIU, is not > documented - unaware users may be surprised. > The situation is worse with Org shell blocks - users naturally expect > script-like behavior (even for :session), but run into edge cases like > this and get confused. > > We should either document the caveats, or, preferably, make the behavior > more consistent with expectations. At least, by default. > That's why I think that filing a bug report makes sense from Org mode > project point of view. Thanks for the explanation. I see you got my point. We'll see what Emacs maintainers will say about the current behavior of M-x shell; filling the bug report was definitely a good idea anyway. Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@posteo.net> writes: > __By default__, Org should produce more expected behavior - what users > would get from running a script file rather than from redirecting stdin. > We can optionally leave the stdin redirection as an option to be used by > the users who understand the peculiarities. I agree that it would be simpler to switch to the script-like behavior by default on org side. About the interactive-like behavior, that would be nice to keep it, if some people rely on it in their existing documents (I personally don't). Bruno