emacs-bug-tracker
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[debbugs-tracker] bug#4719: closed (23.1; M-& to run commands asynchrono


From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: [debbugs-tracker] bug#4719: closed (23.1; M-& to run commands asynchronously (async-shell-command))
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 00:23:02 +0000

Your message dated Sun, 29 Jul 2012 03:04:12 +0300
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#4719: 23.1; M-& to run commands asynchronously 
(async-shell-command)
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #4719,
regarding 23.1; M-& to run commands asynchronously (async-shell-command)
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
4719: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=4719
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: 23.1; M-& to run commands asynchronously (async-shell-command) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
I propose to add a new function, async-shell-command, bound to M-&, which in 
analogous to shell-command (bound to M-!) but executes the command in the 
background (as if you had written an ampersand at the end of M-!).
Both functions would respectively correspond to keys ! and & in dired, only 
that ! and & work only in dired but M-! and M-& would be global (work 
everywhere).

The code is in this message in an old thread:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/111825

There are still some details to decide: how many buffers to open, where to 
direct STDOUT, whether output should be visible, …

Some modes should be checked since they might be using M-&.








--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: bug#4719: 23.1; M-& to run commands asynchronously (async-shell-command) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 03:04:12 +0300 User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1.50 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
>> So I propose a minimal change that just removes the current annoyance
>> where async-shell-command asks to kill the buffer instead of doing
>> something more constructive like creating a new buffer for running
>> another asynchronous command.
>>
>> This is implemented in the patch below.
>
> Patch looks fine to me.

Installed and closed.


--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]