[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: setenv
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: setenv |
Date: |
Fri, 21 Sep 2001 23:40:17 -0600 (MDT) |
> 3) Making any emacs primitives that call such `environment grokking'
> library functions propagate any related enviroment variables from
> `process-environment' into the real environment when needed. This
> requires the affected primitives to know when such action is needed,
> but this is no more burden than that of option (2), and it has the
> big advantage of putting the onus on the emacs developers rather
> than on the users!
>
> As you can see, I like option (3).
Unfortunately, option 3 depends on intimate knowledge of the library
internals, and might mean you will need ugly system-dependent code
that potentially needs to be changed when new versions of the
libraries are released on each system.
In theory, we would need intimate knowledge. In practice, I think we
don't. There are just a few parts of Emacs that do anything so
complex it might fork a process without Emacs's knowledge.
And it would never hurt to add a few extra calls to the function
that updates the C-level environment, whenever there is doubt.
We don't need to get this "exactly right".
- Re: setenv, (continued)
- Re: setenv, Richard Stallman, 2001/09/21
- Re: setenv, Richard Stallman, 2001/09/20
Re: setenv, Thomas F. Burdick, 2001/09/20
- Re: setenv, Miles Bader, 2001/09/20
- Re: setenv, Eli Zaretskii, 2001/09/21
- Re: setenv, Miles Bader, 2001/09/21
- Re: setenv,
Richard Stallman <=
- Re: setenv, Eli Zaretskii, 2001/09/22
- Re: setenv, Thomas F. Burdick, 2001/09/22
- Re: setenv, Miles Bader, 2001/09/22
- Re: setenv, Thomas F. Burdick, 2001/09/22
Re: setenv, Richard Stallman, 2001/09/23
Re: setenv, Hallvard B Furuseth, 2001/09/24
Re: setenv, Richard Stallman, 2001/09/25
Re: setenv, Thomas F. Burdick, 2001/09/25
Re: setenv, David desJardins, 2001/09/25
Re: setenv, Thomas F. Burdick, 2001/09/25