[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: called by a process filter?
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: called by a process filter? |
Date: |
Thu, 12 May 2005 21:33:31 -0400 |
Binding a non-command object (a process) to this-command looks quite
obscure and unclean to me.
To me it seems natural. The filter was not run by any user command,
so I'm suggesting the idea that the command that ran the filter code
is the process itself.
Lots of commands look at this-command (and internally we copy it to
last-command etc). I could envision this change breaking code in
mysterious ways.
If something looks at this-command inside a process filter, it is
probably broken already. In general it is unpredictable what command
is running, or was just running, when the process filter is called.
So such code would currently get unpredictable results.
It would indeed be safer to use a new variable, though.
- Re: called by a process filter?, (continued)
Re: called by a process filter?, Richard Stallman, 2005/05/12
- Re: called by a process filter?, Kim F. Storm, 2005/05/12
- Re: called by a process filter?, Stefan Monnier, 2005/05/12
- Re: called by a process filter?, Kim F. Storm, 2005/05/12
- Re: called by a process filter?, Stefan Monnier, 2005/05/12
- Re: called by a process filter?, Kevin Rodgers, 2005/05/12
- Re: called by a process filter?, Kim F. Storm, 2005/05/13
Re: called by a process filter?,
Richard Stallman <=
Re: called by a process filter?, Kim F. Storm, 2005/05/13
Re: called by a process filter?, Richard Stallman, 2005/05/13