rms@prep (11/20/85)
From: rms@prep (Richard M. Stallman) The version 17 manual will be formattable with ordinary TeX, and will be available in a few days, I hope. I urge people who want manuals to wait for that. I'm not convinced it is right for the ESHELL variable to affect noninteractive subshells. Why should they be different from noninteractive subshells made by all other programs? I suspect that more people want what ESHELL does now. People can always set shell-file-name with setq in the .emacs file if they really do want it to be different from the SHELL variable.
howie@cucca.UUCP (Howie Kaye) (11/21/85)
We are running the korn shell at Columbia, and it wouldn't run properly
as a subfork of emacs, possibly something to do with it running through
a pty. That was the initial reason for my change. Why should gnuemacs
do things differently for interactive and noninteractive shells? It
seemed that the ESHELL variable, for consistancy, should be used for
all shells.
--
Howie Kaye Sy.Howie@CU20B.ARPA
Columbia University HKAUS@cuvma (bitnet)
System's Integration Group {?}!seismo!columbia!cucca!howie