[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Grand Unified Debugger Rewrite's process buffer: comint, eterm or e
Re: Grand Unified Debugger Rewrite's process buffer: comint, eterm or eshell?
Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:30:07 +0000
Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11)
rocky <address@hidden> writes:
> I have started to rewrite gud from the ground up.
> For the process buffer I have 3 choices.
> 1. I can stick with comint.el. It seems the most creaky.
`Creaky' how? The whole idea of comint is to be a general way to run
sub-processes like debuggers, although there should be another layer to
abstract things like inferior programming interpreters. What's wrong
with it for that?
> I use it both in
> comint.el and eshell.el in "shell tracker" (think pdb-track) mode.
I implemented a prototype gud-minor-mode long ago for that sort of
thing, as alluded to in python.el if I recall correctly. It's
straightforward but can't be a simple add-on to GUD, so wasn't going to
be useful. The pdbtrack stuff is a mistake, apparently from a
mono-lingual programming culture, and it's unfortunate it's been
installed in Emacs, making it harder to do the right thing.