salzman@RAND.ORG (Isaac) (03/13/89)
[this was also posted to comp.emacs]
Hello netland! Does anyone really use Emacs as a login shell? Do you have
any particularly interesting applications of Emacs? We all know that Emacs
is more than just an editor. Many people read their e-mail, netnews and do
all sorts of other things in Emacs. Do you do anything unique and different
with Emacs? Is so, please reply to this message via direct e-mail to the
address below. Thanks!!
--
* Isaac J. Salzman ----
* The RAND Corporation - Information Sciences Dept. /o o/ /
* 1700 Main St., PO Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90406-2138 | v | |
* AT&T: +1 213-393-0411 x6421 or x7923 (ISL lab) _| |_/
* ARPA: salzman@RAND.ORG or salzman@rand-unix.ARPA / | |
* UUCP: ...!{cbosgd,decvax,sdcrdcf}!randvax!salzman | | | sethr@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu (Seth Robertson) (03/14/89)
In article <1908@randvax.UUCP> salzman@rand.org (Isaac Salzman) writes: >Hello netland! Does anyone really use Emacs as a login shell? >* Isaac J. Salzman ---- If it wern't for ksh, I might actually do that IF emacs had job control!! When you can't suspend or background or even cancel(!) a job, the shell mode isn't really usuable. Of course if I just havn't RTFM (I have, though) and there is a way to use job control, then please tell me. -Seth seth@ctr.columbia.edu
barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) (03/15/89)
In article <1296@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu> seth@ctr.columbia.edu (Seth Robertson) writes: >If it wern't for ksh, I might actually do that IF emacs had job >control!! When you can't suspend or background or even cancel(!) a >job, the shell mode isn't really usuable. All the special shell-mode commands are listed by C-h m (the command to describe the current major mode) while in shell mode. C-c C-c kills the current job, C-c C-z suspends it, etc. The standard definitions of these have trouble when the jobs are setuid, though, since they work by actually sending a signal. I've got modified versions that simply shove a C-c or C-z through the pty. Barry Margolin Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
mac@mrk.ardent.com (Michael McNamara) (03/15/89)
In article <1296@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu> seth@ctr.columbia.edu (Seth Robertson) writes: |In article <1908@randvax.UUCP> salzman@rand.org (Isaac Salzman) writes: |>Hello netland! Does anyone really use Emacs as a login shell? |>* Isaac J. Salzman ---- | |If it wern't for ksh, I might actually do that IF emacs had job |control!! When you can't suspend or background or even cancel(!) a |job, the shell mode isn't really usuable. | |Of course if I just havn't RTFM (I have, though) and there is a way to |use job control, then please tell me. +---------You asked: All the job control of the underlying shell is available; if that shell is ksh or csh, then C-z, bg & fg all work ( albeit you'll have to quote the C-z via C-q C-z, or use the Shell mode mapping of "C-c C-z stop-shell-subjob". {from help on shell-mode} ) Interrupt works for every shell I know of: either C-q C-c or "C-c C-c interrupt-shell-subjob" {from help on shell-mode} This info, and helpful hints about any mode you are in is available via C-h m. C-h m should perhaps be used before you RTFM, as it is a much more immediate and directed a form of help; it tells you *NOW* about the mode you are in *NOW*. R'ingTFM losses due to having to find the FM, and having to find the pertinate information in the FM. [ Note: C-h m means hit control H then m. ] Note also that there are further ksh'isms available for shell.el that make things like C-c C-p scroll through your shell history just like j or C-p do in ksh(1). If you want this, ask here and someone will post this. +--------------------------------- | | | -Seth | seth@ctr.columbia.edu +--------------------------------- Michael McNamara mac@ardent.com
dave@arnold.UUCP (Dave Arnold) (03/19/89)
In article <37506@think.UUCP>, barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) writes: > In article <1296@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu> seth@ctr.columbia.edu (Seth Robertson) writes: > versions that simply shove a C-c or C-z through the pty. > What is the difference between using pty's and using pipes for emacs subprocesses? -- Dave Arnold ...!uunet!ccicpg!arnold!dave Volt Delta Resources dave@arnold.volt.com (714) 921-7635
barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) (03/22/89)
In article <430@arnold.UUCP> dave@arnold.UUCP (Dave Arnold) writes: >What is the difference between using pty's and using pipes for emacs >subprocesses? There are some programs that care whether they are being used interactively or as part of a pipeline, using isatty() to check whether the output is going to a terminal. Shell mode uses a pty so that they will know that they are being used interactively. Barry Margolin Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar