bug#7842: acknowledged by developer (control message for bug 7842)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>
> Cc: rgm@gnu.org, 7842@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:51:41 -0800
> 
> > Why do you want to avoid it?  What is the problem with using this
> > method?
> 
> For the exact same reasons you don't just send stdout to a temporary
> file.  It is exactly the same issue.  Pretty much the whole point of
> call-process is that it captures stdout to a buffer.  But somehow the
> logic that applies to stdout does not apply to stderr?  That makes no
> sense.  If we feel it's important that users be able to capture stdout
> into a buffer, then we should be able to capture stderr into a buffer
> for exactly the same reasons.

You _can_ capture stderr in a buffer, if you insert the file into a
buffer.  Why is it important how the stuff got into a buffer?

> >> Is there some technical reason that it's impossible to just capture
> >> the stderr to a separate buffer?
> >
> > It's possible, but it will complicate the API which is already quite
> > complicated and hard to maintain for every platform Emacs supports.
> 
> This also seems like a really bad justification for closing this as
> "won't fix".  It may be difficult, but it's still a legitimate feature
> request.

I didn't close it, but I can understand why it was closed: the reason
for the feature is not important enough, as there's already a simple
way of getting what you want.