[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#25671: Feature request: emacs -Q --script as a single binary
From: |
Clément Pit--Claudel |
Subject: |
bug#25671: Feature request: emacs -Q --script as a single binary |
Date: |
Fri, 10 Feb 2017 15:21:33 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0 |
On 2017-02-10 11:58, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Cc: 25671@debbugs.gnu.org
>> From: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pitclaudel@live.com>
>> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:45:55 -0500
>>
>>>>> I believe changing the program behavior depending on how it was named
>>>>> in the command that invoked it is against GNU coding standards.
>>>>
>>>> What about providing elisp or emacs-script as a separate binary?
>>>
>>> What about it?
>>
>> Would that be OK? Could it work?
>
> Yes, it will. Although distributing two large binaries might be
> overkill. (All that just to make shell scripts slightly simpler?)
Right; that's why I thought the "two possible names for the same binary"
approach was nice :/
It would make it possible to run elisp command line programs in Windows without
a batch script wrapper, and it would make these scripts nicer in GNU/Linux and
macOS. But arguably that's still a limited benefit. If there's no way to
reuse the Emacs binary (that is, if there's no way to make "elisp" just be a
wrapper around "emacs"), then I think we should close this issue.
Cheers,
Clément.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature