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

[Jameson Graef Rollins]

On Wed, Feb 13 2013, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> 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?

I am really confused why you guys keep responding with points like this.
I've responded to this exact point twice now and you guys keep coming
back with the same completely illogical and unthought-through dismissal.
Do I really have to explain why redirecting to a file is not the same
thing as a pipe?  I would have assumed that emacs developers would be
familiar with pipes.  And the entire point of the command in question
(call-process) is to capture stdout to a buffer, so at least the
original author understood.  So maybe it's somehow hard to understand
that the same considerations for stdout would apply to stderr?  Somehow
I doubt that as well.  Something else is going on.

But just in case you *really* don't understand what I'm talking about,
let me try a simple example that might help you understand.  Are these
two commands equivalent?:

$ ps > tempfile; grep bash tempfile; rm tempfile
$ ps | grep bash

No, obviously they're not:

* The first touches the disk, the second does not.

* The first requires me to pick a temporary file name that does not
  collide with an existing file on disk, the second does not.

* The first requires me to cleanup a temporary file, the second does
  not.

* The first is 45 characters long, the second is 13.

This is first year programmer stuff.

I think what's really going on here is that you're trying to dismiss
this request because it's hard to implement and you for some reason feel
you need to close out wishlist reports (why?).  I guess I'm willing to
accept that.  But please don't keep feeding me bullshit.  It's childish.
Just be an adult and explain what the issue is without trying to blow
smoke up my ass.

jamie.

pgp9b44Y_X4HV.pgp
Description: PGP signature