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

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

[debbugs-tracker] bug#25708: closed (25.1.91; Allow users to inhibit pri


From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: [debbugs-tracker] bug#25708: closed (25.1.91; Allow users to inhibit printing for 'emacsclient -c -t')
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 08:34:01 +0000

Your message dated Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:33:12 +0200
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#25708: 25.1.91; Allow users to inhibit printing for 
'emacsclient -c -t'
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #25708,
regarding 25.1.91; Allow users to inhibit printing for 'emacsclient -c -t'
to be marked as done.

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


-- 
25708: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=25708
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: 25.1.91; Allow users to inhibit printing for 'emacsclient -c -t' Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 14:46:34 -0500
Sometimes I want to eval some elisp at the command line exclusively to
set up some buffers for me to work with in a new frame. For example, to
diff two files, I often do:
  emacsclient -c -e '(ediff "fileA" "fileB")

This works, but emacsclient annoyingly prints the result of the eval'ed
expression to stdout. In this case, I'll get:
  #<buffer *Ediff Control Panel*>

This output is annoying, and it can't be redirected (`emacsclient -c' on a
terminal fail to launch if stdout is redirected, for obvious reasons).

It would be great if emacsclient had a way to inhibit printing the
result, for cases where the user is only eval'ing the expressions for
their side effects.



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: bug#25708: 25.1.91; Allow users to inhibit printing for 'emacsclient -c -t' Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:33:12 +0200
> From: address@hidden (Peder O. Klingenberg)
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>,  address@hidden,  address@hidden
> Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 21:55:15 +0100
> 
> Andreas Schwab <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > Then it's not a good word to describe the option.  Better would be
> > --suppress-output.
> 
> I thought it succinctly expressed what the flag did, but I have no
> objection to --suppress-output.
> 
> Attached is the latest version of the patch, with all objections raised
> so far addressed.

Thanks, pushed to the master branch.


--- End Message ---

reply via email to

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