bug#61310: closed (Eshell modifying and running output regression)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Fri, 24 Feb 2023 09:59:07 -0800
with message-id <9c7a35b2-a641-f4b4-8130-138ec1870371@gmail.com>
and subject line Re: bug#61310: Eshell modifying and running output regression
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #61310,
regarding Eshell modifying and running output regression
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs@gnu.org.)


-- 
61310: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=61310
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Eshell modifying and running output regression
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Sun, 05 Feb 2023 23:18:00 -0500
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
>
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> eshell allows you to modify the output of a command and run it.  It is a
> beautiful thing.
>
> Example:
>
> $ ls
> file.el
> $
>
> now go up and append "file" to the output and hit enter.
>
> $ ls
> file file.el
> $ file file.el
> color.el: Lisp/Scheme program, Unicode text, UTF-8 text
> $
>
>
> The ability is currently broken because "file.el" has the field property
> set to "command-output" and the "file" command that I added has no
> property field.  So currently the previous interaction would actually
> yield:
>
> $ ls
> file file.el
> $ file.el
> file.el: command not found
> $
>
>
> This was broken in commit 558f04c39e036d2f681f72556627768d7bee9ab5.  Now
> adding the field to eshell prompt makes a lot of sense and I like that.
> I don't know much about fields but it looks like it is not necessary to
> have a command-output field at all.  I propose we get rid of that.  If
> you want to keep the field, can we make it sticky or something?  I just
> want the above usecase fixed.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Morgan
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#61310: Eshell modifying and running output regression
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Fri, 24 Feb 2023 09:59:07 -0800
>
>
>
>
> On 2/9/2023 10:39 PM, Jim Porter wrote:
> > On 2/7/2023 3:37 PM, Jim Porter wrote:
> > > Good call. Here's a patch that (mostly) copies those comint functions 
> > > over to Eshell.
> >
> > Ok, pushed this as ab7c2f8092.
>
> Since no one has complained that my fix didn't work in the past couple 
> weeks, I'm assuming all is well here. Closing. (But if it's still 
> broken, just let me know.)
>
>
> --- End Message ---