GNU bug report logs - #72018
30.0.60; [PATCH] Don't emit a prompt when a background Eshell process is killed

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 18:05:01 UTC

Severity: normal

Tags: patch

Found in version 30.0.60

Done: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #11 received at 72018 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 72018 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#72018: 30.0.60; [PATCH] Don't emit a prompt when a background
 Eshell process is killed
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 09:16:11 -0700
On 7/10/2024 4:16 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 11:04:05 -0700
>> From: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
>>
>> This is a regression from Emacs 29, likely due to some changes I made to
>> improve support for complex background commands. Eli, is this ok to
>> merge to the release branch?
> 
> I don't think I understand the essence of the change, and thus cannot
> appreciate its effects enough to be able to answer this.  What is the
> significance of '(car command)' in this hunk:

'command' is a "command entry", and the result of 
'eshell-commands-for-process', which returns a list of elements of the form:

    (BACKGROUND FORM PROCESSES)

BACKGROUND is non-nil if the command is being run in the background.

>> +          ;; Reset the prompt if the command we just aborted was in the
>> +          ;; foreground.
>> +          (unless (car command)
>> +            (declare-function eshell-reset "esh-mode" (&optional no-hooks))
>> +            (eshell-reset)))))))
> 
> IOW, why '(car command)' is used as an indication of a fore/background
> command?  Also, why does the comment say "foreground" while your text
> says we don't want the prompt if the killed program was in the
> background?

We want to reset the prompt (this just emits a new command prompt) for 
foreground commands, but for background commands, we don't need to do 
anything. Would it be clearer if I inverted the wording in the comment, 
like, "Don't reset the prompt if the command we just aborted was in the 
background"?




This bug report was last modified 1 year ago.

Previous Next


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