Re: Generalize start-process with keyword args

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Andy Moreton <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 22:27:44 +0000
> 
> On Mon 16 Mar 2015, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> >> From: Andy Moreton <address@hidden>
> >> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 19:12:45 +0000
> >> 
> >> start-process assumes that the system is capable of handling shebang
> >> lines in shell scripts and launching them by executing a shell.
> >
> > Can you point out where does this assumption live in the code?
> 
> In the callers of start-process

Can you give me an example of such a caller?  (I'm not asking idle
questions here; there are aspects of the problem you describe that
aren't really clear to me, but I prefer finding out the answers by
looking at the code than by asking too many questions.)

> which assume that an executeable shell script can be used as the
> command argument.

How do they decide that a shell script is executable?

> >> It would be useful to have a way to have start-process have an option to
> >> start the new process via a shell, so that existing code that assumes
> >> that it can use start-process with an executable shell script can also
> >> be made to work on Windows.
> >
> > The Windows shells cannot run Unix shell script, so I'm not sure I
> > understand how would you like this to work.
> 
> By (optionally) invoking the command via a shell.

But what shell would be able to interpret such scripts on Windows?
AFAIK, there are no good candidates for that role.

> This allows integration of unix style commands inplemented as
> executable shell scripts with Win32 emacs.

IMO, those shell scripts should be ported to Windows by converting
them to batch files that the stock Windows shell can interpret.