[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: What I'm missing when using M-x shell
From: |
Francis Moreau |
Subject: |
Re: What I'm missing when using M-x shell |
Date: |
Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:43:04 +0200 |
On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Dan Espen
<daneNO@more.mk.spamtelcordia.com> wrote:
> "Francis Moreau" <francis.moro@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> [ please CC me when replying to me ]
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Dan Espen
>> <daneNO@more.mk.spamtelcordia.com> wrote:
>>> Compiles are M-x compile, greps are M-x grep,
>>> ls is dired, email is MH-E.
>>
>> But what would you suggest as replacement for:
>>
>> $ make && gdb || mail -s "Compilation failed" home
>
> First, the make is always run as M-x compile.
>
> In my case, the most likely outcome from M-x compile is
> that I'll be correcting syntax errors. Since I've run
> M-x compile, M-x next-error becomes really useful.
>
> So, no make from the command line for me.
>
> I'm got a big fan of running under gdb.
> If I did want to run under gdb a lot, I'd probably figure out
> Emacs gdb.
>
> Typically my make target is not just a compile but a compile
> and test and check results. No need to send myself
> an email since the M-x compile clearly shows whether the
> compile/test worked.
>
That was just a (silly) example where scripting can be powerful and
can't be replace by some M-x <cmd> or whatever...
--
Francis
Message not available
Re: What I'm missing when using M-x shell, Oleksandr Gavenko, 2008/09/12
Re: What I'm missing when using M-x shell, rustom, 2008/09/13
Re: What I'm missing when using M-x shell, Livin Stephen, 2008/09/13