GNU bug report logs - #42612
28.0.50; Eshell: support setting working buffer like IELM

Previous Next

To reply to this bug, email your comments to 42612 AT debbugs.gnu.org.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 28.0.50; Eshell: support setting working buffer like IELM
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 22:29:52 -0700

Hello,

Eshell's docs advertise it as a replacement for IELM, but one IELM
feature that Eshell doesn't have is an equivalent to C-c C-b, or,
ielm-change-working-buffer.  It would be great to have something like
this.

-- 
Sean Whitton

Message #8 received at 42612 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Sean Whitton <spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name>
Cc: 42612 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#42612: 28.0.50;
 Eshell: support setting working buffer like IELM
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 16:15:05 +0300

> From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name>
> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 22:29:52 -0700
> 
> Eshell's docs advertise it as a replacement for IELM, but one IELM
> feature that Eshell doesn't have is an equivalent to C-c C-b, or,
> ielm-change-working-buffer.  It would be great to have something like
> this.

Like "C-u M-x eshell RET"?

If that's not what you wanted, then perhaps I don't quite understand
what you meant by running Eshell in another buffer.

Message #11 received at 42612 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 42612 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#42612: 28.0.50; Eshell: support setting working buffer like
 IELM
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 09:49:15 -0700

Hello Eli,

On Thu 30 Jul 2020 at 04:15PM +03, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name>
>> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 22:29:52 -0700
>>
>> Eshell's docs advertise it as a replacement for IELM, but one IELM
>> feature that Eshell doesn't have is an equivalent to C-c C-b, or,
>> ielm-change-working-buffer.  It would be great to have something like
>> this.
>
> Like "C-u M-x eshell RET"?
>
> If that's not what you wanted, then perhaps I don't quite understand
> what you meant by running Eshell in another buffer.

No, not what I had in mind.

In IELM you can type C-c C-b and select a buffer, and then when you eval
further sexps in *ielm*, it will be as if you used M-: with that other
buffer selected.  Useful for debugging a major or minor mode.

In Eshell the closest thing you can do is wrap your sexps in a
(with-current-buffer) form, or use (progn (set-buffer ...) ...), which
is less convenient.

-- 
Sean Whitton

Message #14 received at 42612 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Sean Whitton <spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name>
Cc: 42612 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#42612: 28.0.50; Eshell: support setting working buffer like
 IELM
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 20:06:36 +0300

> From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name>
> Cc: 42612 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 09:49:15 -0700
> 
> In IELM you can type C-c C-b and select a buffer, and then when you eval
> further sexps in *ielm*, it will be as if you used M-: with that other
> buffer selected.  Useful for debugging a major or minor mode.
> 
> In Eshell the closest thing you can do is wrap your sexps in a
> (with-current-buffer) form, or use (progn (set-buffer ...) ...), which
> is less convenient.

Eshell is a shell.  What is the semantics of running a shell in a
buffer?  The only semantics I can think of is to run the shell in the
default-directory of that buffer.

Message #17 received at 42612 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton <at> spwhitton.name>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 42612 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#42612: 28.0.50; Eshell: support setting working buffer like
 IELM
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2020 15:10:20 -0700

Hello Eli,

On Thu 30 Jul 2020 at 08:06PM +03, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> Eshell is a shell.  What is the semantics of running a shell in a
> buffer?  The only semantics I can think of is to run the shell in the
> default-directory of that buffer.

(info "(eshell) Top") says

    [Eshell] is intended to be an alternative to the IELM REPL for Emacs
    and with an interface similar to command shells ...

The functionality of setting a working buffer would be for when Eshell
is being used as an alternative to IELM, and it would have the same
semantics as the equivalent functionality in IELM.

I agree that when Eshell is being used as a command shell the only
significant thing would be default-directory.

-- 
Sean Whitton

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.